Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Decommissioning

Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement on the decommissioning process in Northern Ireland. [103413]

Mr. Simon Hughes: What progress he can report on decommissioning of weapons. [103415]

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will set out a timetable for the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [103417]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will set out a timetable for the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [103419]

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What discussions he has held with the Taoiseach on matters relating to the decommissioning of paramilitary arms. [103421]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): Decommissioning remains an essential part of securing full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland agree that decommissioning should begin as soon as possible. The report published on 10 December by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reaffirmed that, and noted that a timetable for voluntary decommissioning is best agreed with the authorised representatives of the paramilitary groups. I discussed that with the Taoiseach when I met him during the inaugural British-Irish Council meeting on 17 December. I look forward to receiving the commission's next report, later this month.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and the commitment that urgent decommissioning remains part of the Good Friday agreement; the murder of Richard Jameson is the most recent reminder of why decommissioning is essential. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the people of Northern Ireland that the British

Government's opinion is that any decommissioned arms should be destroyed, rather than dumped, and that, if destruction does not prove to be possible in the short term, any weapons that are dumped remain permanently secure?

Mr. Mandelson: The people of Northern Ireland can remain assured that decommissioning remains absolutely central to the fulfilment of the Good Friday agreement. It is not possible to have progress on one part of the Good Friday agreement, but for another to be forgotten. If that were to happen, confidence would simply drain away from all that we have achieved in Northern Ireland.
The methods of decommissioning are for General de Chastelain to determine, providing that the weapons are destroyed or made permanently inaccessible and that there is independent verification of the destruction or the putting beyond use that has occurred. I have great confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues to ensure that that process is properly verified.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State must know that, across the United Kingdom, and beyond it, there is huge good will towards the peace process in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us what plans he has—either with the Taoiseach or with other parties in Northern Ireland—to ensure that the process that he has just described, under General de Chastelain, is not only seen to produce decommissioning, but has the community's confidence that that is really happening, and happening now? In that way people will see progress made in every month until May, rather than three months of tension before the final agreed date.

Mr. Mandelson: We can generously understand the reluctance of people in the republican movement to decommission except in the context of an overall settlement. However, that settlement has now been put in place: we have the Good Friday agreement, and that condition has been fulfilled. Therefore, we may reasonably expect, as the people of Northern Ireland do, that decommissioning should now start apace, so that it can be completed within the one timetable—the one deadline—that has been established under the Good Friday agreement, which is May 2000. However, for that deadline to be met, a start must be made. All of us—every party that has signed up to the statement, and the belief that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process—will want and expect that start to be made very soon.

Mr. O'Brien: I have listened very carefully to the Minister's replies on decommissioning. Does he agree that, in the absence of early and urgent decommissioning, in a free and civilised society, it is wrong to have Ministers of Health and Education who continue to be inextricably linked with a fully armed terrorist organisation?

Mr. Mandelson: No, I do not. If one were to believe that that is wrong, one would question the very basis of the peace that has been struck, the ceasefires that have been maintained, and the normalisation of politics that has been returned, at long last, to Northern Ireland.
I do not think that we should take for granted exactly what has been achieved. On most bread and butter issues in Northern Ireland, we now have, for the first time in


25 years, power back in the hands of Northern Ireland politicians. We also now have an Executive in Northern Ireland who are representative of the whole community in Northern Ireland: there are no longer any outsiders in Northern Ireland politics, which is to be welcomed. Moreover, politics in Northern Ireland are no longer dominated by the age-old constitutional quarrel that has bedevilled them for so long.
Obviously, for those conditions to be fulfilled and for the institutions to be sustained, we need progress on every part of the Good Friday agreement, and that means early decommissioning. That is what I hope and assume will now take place; otherwise, many people in Northern Ireland will feel cheated because one side has not fulfilled its side of the bargain.

Mr. Waterson: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that nobody is keener on peace in Northern Ireland than my constituents, who saw my predecessor, Ian Gow, murdered? However, they have seen hundreds of terrorists released and ministerial portfolios given to those with clear terrorist links. When can they expect something tangible in return?

Mr. Mandelson: We have already seen significant progress on decommissioning. The establishment of the political institutions in Northern Ireland has created a new context in which decommissioning can and should occur. For the first time, all the main paramilitaries have appointed representatives to General de Chastelain's decommissioning body. In December, the general and his colleagues reported that those and other events
provide the basis for an assessment that decommissioning will occur".
Further discussions are continuing, and General de Chastelain will report again this month. I hope and assume that he will be reporting further progress.

Dr. Godman: With reference to my question concerning the Taoiseach, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that there is broad agreement between the two Governments concerning the need for decommissioning to take place on or before the May deadline. In light of the impressive developments that have taken place—to which my right hon. Friend has referred—does he agree that the time has come for the leader of the Ulster Unionist party to give the most serious consideration to a rethinking of his February deadline? If he were to do that, those impressive developments would surely take strong and healthy root in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mandelson: It is not unreasonable for the process to be put on some sort of probation while progress is made on the implementation of all parts of the Good Friday agreement. Let us be under no illusions: the implementation of the agreement depends on trust being built by all sides and on all sides. It requires reciprocal confidence-building measures, so that everyone can be assured that every part of the agreement is being properly implemented. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the Ulster Unionist party has the expectation—which is shared by the British Government, the Irish Government,

the American Government and all the other political parties in Northern Ireland—that an early start is made on decommissioning.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State as concerned as I am that intelligence reports give no indication that Sinn Fein-IRA is preparing for decommissioning within the time scale that we all expect? Does he agree that we cannot go on trying to purchase disarmament by increments? Will he assure us that the ethos of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be neither diminished nor distorted in order to flatter Sinn Fein-IRA into a process of decommissioning to which it already assented during the Mitchell review?

Mr. Mandelson: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman makes the link between decommissioning and the Patten report. I will do nothing that undermines the ethos or the organisational cohesion of the RUC and whatever police service flows from our implementation of the Patten report; nor will I tolerate any action that impugns the integrity or the professionalism of the police in Northern Ireland. Equally, the police themselves recognise that a fresh start is needed in policing in Northern Ireland so that it is effective and embraced by both communities. Therefore, in implementing the Patten report, we will be mindful of those things, and I will make clear the Government's decisions on its implementation in due course.

Mr. John Hume: Will the Secretary of State point out to all the people who continually ask negative questions about decommissioning that they are being most unconstructive and ignoring all the positive things that have happened, with peace restored to our streets? They do not seem to have noticed that the main political parties, the official Unionists, my party and Sinn Fein are all totally committed to the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, which includes the full implementation of decommissioning, demilitarisation and disarmament. We must take the positive view, as all the negativism is only in danger of stirring up trouble.

Mr. Mandelson: How nice it is to see the hon. Gentleman back among us, restored to good health. He is absolutely right: we should give credit for the political progress that has been made. It is easy for some to underestimate the sheer enormity of what has been achieved in Northern Ireland following the breakthrough made at the end of the Mitchell review.
Of course there is no room for complacency, but the fact is that the age-old argument over constitutional issues that has dogged Northern Ireland's politics for so long and resulted in its local politicians being shut out of government for more than a quarter of a century has been ended, and I hope for all time. The issues are now agreed and settled on the basis of consent. That is a major breakthrough and we must do everything that we can to cherish and protect it, whatever pressure it comes under.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I very much hope that decommissioning will work, but will the Secretary of State confirm that it is inconceivable for Sinn Fein Ministers to remain in office if it does not take place?

Mr. Mandelson: I can only repeat what I said to the House before: if there is a report from General de


Chastelain and his colleagues that there is a default on the part of any party signed up to the process—just as would be the case if one of the other parties defaulted in relation to devolution—the Government will take action to suspend the operation of the institutions, as I do not believe that it is right for any party to profit from a default. The whole process would then go back into review and we would do everything that we could to get it back on track as quickly as possible.

Restorative Justice

Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on the development of restorative justice schemes. [103414]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingrain): The experience in many jurisdictions is that restorative justice has a role to play in making offenders more aware of the consequences of their actions, facilitating reparation to victims and allowing reconciliation between offender and victim or between victim and the wider community. It is extremely important that the rights and interests of both victim and offender are protected. Such schemes must be complementary to the criminal justice system, not an alternative to it. Investigation of crime is the responsibility of the police and the determination of guilt or innocence solely the responsibility of the courts.

Kali Mountford: Does my right hon. Friend believe that there are lessons to be learned from the experience of restorative justice for the rest of the United Kingdom? I welcome what he said about the complementary nature of restorative justice: it would not be good for it to take the place of the due process of law. Will he comment on what an important part it plays in returning to a normal social environment and leaving behind the horror of the past?

Mr. Ingram: I agree with all those points. If we are able to get schemes in operation in addition to those that we are already piloting in Northern Ireland and to draw on international as well as British experience, that would further normalisation in Northern Ireland, which I am sure that everyone would welcome.

Mr. David Trimble: Does the Minister agree that some of the restorative justice schemes that are operating in Northern Ireland could be accurately described as alternative justice schemes? Does he also agree that those schemes are operating wholly outside the legal system and involve significant abuse of the rights of the people who are caught up within them? Will he give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced to ensure that the only restorative justice schemes that operate are those that have a clear legal basis, are integrated into the legal system, fully respect the rights of those involved and comply wholly with the letter and the spirit of the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman has hit on an important aspect of some of the developments that are taking place outwith the normal process of the rule of law which ignore that important right of everyone—offenders and victims—to the protection of his human rights. Some

schemes clearly do not conform to what is desirable, do not recognise the police and, indeed, may not even recognise the due process of law. Such schemes do not fall within the ambit of restorative justice but of a different type of civil administration and are, therefore, unacceptable. A review of the criminal justice system is due to be completed shortly and we will report in due course to the House.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, and whether we like it or not, a perceived vacuum in policing is being replaced by paramilitary actions and their distinctive brand of restorative justice. How long does the Minister think it will be before that paramilitary action is replaced by the rule of law?

Mr. Ingram: It is not just down to those who administer the rule of law—the police, the Government or the criminal justice system—it is also down to the community to recognise the primacy of the rule of law and to co-operate with those schemes that have been defined and conform to the fundamental principles that I enunciated in an earlier answer. [Interruption.] I would hope that that could be achieved immediately, but we will continue to work to remove that unsatisfactory and unwelcome aspect of society in Northern Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if conversations were a little less noisy. It is difficult for Back Benchers and Ministers to be heard. [Interruption.] Order. I am asking for conversations to be less noisy. I can hear what hon. Members are saying, but I want to hear what they say when they are on their feet.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
But does not the Minister think that the many victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland are unlikely to have much confidence in restorative justice when they see what they believe to be clear commitments in the Belfast agreement being altered? How can anybody have any confidence when weapons that were meant to be handed in and destroyed will now be made permanently inaccessible in secret arms dumps that will be known to the terrorists? No weapons will be handed in or destroyed, so they will still be accessible.

Mr. Ingram: Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the earlier reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We listened to the hon. Gentleman's question and he should have listened to the reply that was given on the point that he has raised. That issue is a matter for the independent commission under John de Chastelain to verify. It has to provide security on the decommissioning of weapons and we have placed our faith in it. I had understood that the hon. Gentleman's party had done so also.

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): Does the Minister appreciate that many people in Northern Ireland feel that the principles of restorative justice would


be more firmly founded if those officers of the RUC who issued death threats to Rosemary Nelson were prosecuted and if there was an international inquiry into her murder?

Mr. Ingram: I should have thought that it was much more important that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice and that support was given to those who are investigating that crime in order to bring those responsible for such a terrible deed before the courts. I understand the way in which my hon. Friend has framed his question, but he has gone slightly wider than the subject of restorative justice schemes. I am happy to discuss with him further the detail of our attempts to ensure that proper restorative justice schemes are applied in Northern Ireland.

Security

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the current security position. [103416]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Over recent months, there has been a marked decrease in the overall number of security-related incidents, and the main paramilitary groups are maintaining their ceasefires. There remains, however, a threat from dissident paramilitaries on both sides who are opposed to the Good Friday agreement.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although I wish the Government well in their complex and difficult endeavours, is not it a matter of real concern that the killings and beatings appear to be continuing, as we saw only yesterday? Do the Government have clear evidence that the incidence of killings and beatings is being reduced? Will the Minister remind all the parties involved that a sound and stable peace will depend on them all abandoning the Mafia-type violence that has been in evidence for so long?

Mr. Ingram: I am sure that the whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of that violence. Earlier, I said that there has been a marked decline in the number of such incidents, but even one is one too many. The solution does not lie only with the RUC, the criminal justice process or even with the politicians. The overall society in Northern Ireland must stand up and condemn such actions, give evidence about them and bear witness to them.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that the prospect for maintaining and improving the current security situation would be greatly enhanced by the early introduction of the Patten report? The report's proposals would make the police service more efficient and, most importantly, would allow it to attract greater cross-community support. Will the Minister enlarge slightly on the answer given by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) as to when the relevant legislation will be introduced? Will he assure the House that the Patten report will be implemented in full, and that there will not be cherry-picking to suit the positions of political parties?

Mr. Ingram: The Patten report examines new ways to deal with policing in Northern Ireland, and the importance

of that was recognised in the Good Friday agreement. The report is in the public domain and there has been a long consultation period on its contents. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, he will address the House on the matter in the next few weeks.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that the murder of Richard Jameson this week illustrates very clearly that the terrorist threat is ever present? Will he therefore give the House a guarantee that there will be no reduction in armed forces levels, or any other security changes, unless the Chief Constable and the Army's General Officer Commanding believe that any such change would be safe?

Mr. Ingram: First, it would be proper to sympathise with the family of the victim of that tragic incident. As for the on-going development of the peace process, we hope that no more such crimes—ones that groups devoted to terrorism, paramilitarism or some political process seek to justify—are committed.
As to the future, assurances have been given time and again that reductions in levels of security will be threat-dependent. Decisions in that regard will be made according to the best available advice.

Mr. MacKay: I wish to return to the deeply regrettable murder of Richard Jameson. If the Chief Constable informs the Minister that the Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible, it will be clear that that group is no longer observing the ceasefire. In those circumstances, will the Minister guarantee that no more prisoners belonging to that organisation will be released from jail?

Mr. Ingram: As we have advised the House time and again, the whole question of prisoner releases is kept under constant review. That would apply in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous confidence that exists in the work that he has done for demilitarisation in Northern Ireland? The reduction of British troop numbers, the closure of vehicle checkpoints and the opening of the border can only help to improve confidence in the security situation there. Should not my right hon. Friend make greater use of what has been achieved in that regard to encourage people to think positively about decommissioning, as the British Government are carrying out what they said that they would do? Would it not be better to talk about the Government's positive achievements in Northern Ireland than to indulge in the nit-picking approach displayed by the Opposition, who appear to want to set back the whole peace process?

Mr. Ingram: The very principle underlying the points made by my hon. Friend were of course set out in the Good Friday agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published shortly before Christmas a paper setting out the way forward for the normalisation of the security profile, which it says is dependent upon the level of threat. Any further security reductions,


which have been considerable over the past year and a half, will be dependent on the best security advice available at that time and in the future.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I am sure that the Government and the Minister will join me in condemning the tragic murder of Richard Jameson in Portadown. Given that last year the Government determined that the IRA ceasefire was intact following its murder of Charles Bennett, what confidence can we have that the Government will apply standards that can be upheld in determining whether a ceasefire has been breached in respect of the murder of Mr. Jameson? Can we have any confidence that the Government will act in those situations to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has been very vocal in his opposition to early releases, but a court assessment has found in favour of the Secretary of State's judgment in terms of the quality of the ceasefire of that particular terrorist group. We continue to monitor the actions of those who are so engaged; judgments are made, and we have shown that we will act resolutely and firmly, based on the evidence that is provided to us on the best security advice available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. John Heppell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families of the seven fishermen who are missing at sea off the Isle of Man. Our profound sympathy is with them all.

Mr. Heppell: May I say what an honour it is to ask the first question of the millennium? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I only hope that it is not the last.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the reports of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and of Saatchi and Saatchi showing that after two decades of Tory Government, we had the worst poverty record in the developed world? But my right hon. Friend will be reassured to know from the Saatchi and Saatchi report that at least the Tories were embarrassed about it. Under this Government, 170,000 jobs have been created under the new deal. In my constituency, youth unemployment has been reduced by 75 per cent. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Leader of the Opposition to be embarrassed about the lack of support

for measures that directly tackle poverty? Or is the Tory party now so extreme as to be incapable of embarrassment?

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister will select from that question the section which relates to his responsibilities.

The Prime Minister: Delighted to do so, Madam Speaker. The new deal has meant that 170,000 young people have gone from the dole into work, into unsubsidised jobs. There are tens of thousands more.

Mr. John Bercow: Rubbish.

The Prime Minister: It is a pity that the Conservative party opposed the new deal, but it always has opposed measures that reduce unemployment and help people who are poor. I met some of these young people yesterday. For the first time in their lives, they have some hope, confidence and prospects for the future. I hope, just for once, that the Conservative party will stand up for unemployed people.

Mr. William Hague: First, may I associate the Opposition entirely and sincerely with the Prime Minister's remarks about the missing fishermen?
Turning to the Government's responsibilities, when the World Health Organisation says that this country's preparations for a flu outbreak have been among the worst in Europe, when people have had their cancer operations cancelled for the fourth time, and when families of relatives who have died say that they are angry with the Government for saying that the national health service is coping, does the right hon. Gentleman stand by the remarks of the Secretary of State for Health—that the NHS is coping well?

The Prime Minister: Let me read out what the chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr. Ian Bogle, has said:
All parts of the health service have been put under pressure, but doctors and nurses are coping well, from GP services to intensive care. Thanks to the high level of planning across the country, we are coping.
As the right hon. Gentleman has opportunistically sought to make capital from this matter, let me point out that half the patients currently in intensive care have illnesses related to flu. Some 600,000 people attended accident and emergency units during the Christmas period, a rise of 32 per cent. Accident and emergency admissions were up 13 per cent.
I agree that there are real capacity constraints, and we need more doctors, nurses and intensive care beds. For precisely that reason, we are putting extra investment into the health service. I said that the right hon. Gentleman was being opportunistic because he has opposed that investment.

Mr. Hague: Why does not the Prime Minister wake up and recognise that the system is not coping for some people? That is the fault not of hard working doctors and nurses, but of a Government and of Ministers who did not prepare for the winter. Why did the Prime Minister not


listen last night to the daughter of a woman whose operation had been cancelled for the fourth time? On the news, she said:
I think it is about time Tony Blair started to realise the reality that NHS hospitals are facing on a day to day basis. The Government is trying to cover it up by saying that hospitals are coping, but they are obviously not.
The situation has been made worse by the Prime Minister's broken promises and by his political distortion of clinical priorities. He has become another Labour Prime Minister saying, "Crisis? What crisis?" If the NHS is coping well, will he give us the statistics for which we asked a month ago? How many people are waiting to see a hospital consultant, and how does that compare with the figure when the Government came to power?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has attacked the waiting list pledge, as a result of which we have reduced in-patient waiting lists by 80,000. I have outlined previously what has happened on out-patients, but more are being treated than ever before. I do not for a moment dispute that the pressures on the health service as a result of the flu outbreak have been serious. Half our intensive care beds are occupied by people with illnesses related to the flu.
I also accept that there are genuine capacity constraints, and that we need to build capacity. Let me once again tell the right hon. Gentleman the facts about what we are doing. Since our campaign to bring more nurses into the health service, 2,600 nurses and midwives have returned to employment. A further 2,500 nurses and midwives are undergoing practice courses to return. As a result of the increase in pay that we gave to starter nurses last year, there has been a 24 per cent. increase in the number taking degree courses this year. Applications for midwifery training have risen by 50 per cent. Four hundred more cancer specialists and 400 more cardiac specialists are in training.
All those things take time—three years to train a nurse and seven for a doctor. It takes years to build hospitals. The difference between the Government and our predecessor is that we recognise the constraints in the health service and are tackling them. Our job is to modernise and improve the NHS, while the right hon. Gentleman's proposals involve privatising a large part of it.

Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister have the courage to give the information that I have requested? We had the first question of the millennium from the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell); can we have the first answer from the Prime Minister? Some 248,000 people were waiting to see a consultant when he came to power, and there are 512,000 now—VIPs and ordinary people, as his friend Lord Falconer would probably put it. The only thing that has risen faster under the Government is the cost of political advisers. Does that not tell us all that we need to know about a Government more interested in style than in substance, in making promises than in delivering on them, in blaming others than in taking responsibility— and more interested in spin doctors than in real doctors?

The Prime Minister: I notice that not a single fact of what I said did the right hon. Gentleman dispute. While we are being lectured by the Opposition, let us not forget that, under the previous, Tory Government— [Interruption.] Let me give them the figures: 40,000 beds

had been cut, when we came to office; nurses in training had been cut; and spending as a percentage of national income had also been cut.
I have done some research on the right hon. Gentleman's time as Secretary of State for Wales—this is the man who lectures us. In his time as Welsh Secretary, he cut the number of doctors; he cut the number of hospital beds; and he cut the number of nurses, midwives and health visitors.
As for "real" doctors, the extra doctors in training are real, the extra nurses in the health service are real, the extra £21 billion is real. Let us never forget that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is to make sure that everyone with a non-urgent operation has to take out private health insurance. That is not the answer to the health service. Yes, there are problems, but the choice is between modernising and rebuilding the health service under us, or privatising it under the Tories.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Is it not important that we consider the experience of other countries which are suffering from the same flu epidemic? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States of America, which spends twice as much on health as we do, but in a largely private health system such as the Opposition are proposing, is struggling, as are we and other European countries? That is despite the fact that, in the States, up to a third of the beds in many hospitals are normally vacant. They still cannot cope with the extra cases. Is that not a lesson for us as regards the foolhardiness of Tory policies?

The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we shall not implement them. If I might expand on the remarks of my hon. Friend, there were reports in The New York Times, during the past two days—[Interruption.] I was going to read them out in response to further questions from the Leader of the Opposition, but I never got any. In The New York Times, for example, it was reported that the wave of flu has become widespread, overwhelming emergency rooms, filling hospital beds, and forcing postponement of operations. In many overcrowded rooms, people are simply leaving without being treated. In Ireland, hospitals in Dublin and around the country were forced again to cancel almost all routine surgery and procedures. In Sweden, all the intensive care facilities are full; some non-urgent operations have been cancelled and closed-down wards are having to be reopened. Elsewhere—in Italy, Norway, Germany, France and Switzerland—there are huge problems as a result of the flu outbreak.
Having said all that, let me return to the point: we accept that there are fundamental capacity constraints in the national health service; we are working to tackle them. However, the way to tackle them is not what is being urged on us by the Opposition, who say that private health care will take the strain. It simply will not. The only alternative is to get money and reform, over time, into the national health service—and that we will do.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: As the Prime Minister does like to keep his promises, does he not have to admit that his promise to save the NHS is, in the depths of the current crisis, looking very threadbare indeed? As he is recommending—correctly—more money for the NHS,


will he make it his priority not to go ahead with another Tory-style tax cut in April, but to give that money to the health service instead?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman needs to co-ordinate his remarks with those of his economic spokesman, who attacks us for putting up the tax burden. Let us get it straight; either we decide that we shall put in the extra investment or we do not—it has to be paid for. We are putting in extra investment. We said that there would be two tight years, and there were, because we needed to sort out the financial deficit. This year is the first year of substantially increased funding. Next year will be the same. The year after that will be the same. If we carry on running a stable economy, we shall get the extra resources for a good three years after that. Already, next year, the proportion of national income spent on the health service is to rise to more than 6 per cent. for the first time. I accept that, meanwhile, there are people suffering and not getting the care that they need in parts of the health service, but it must be done stage by stage, over time, in a way that is consistent with the proper running of an economy.

Mr. Kennedy: Going back to the issue of promises, may I ask the Prime Minister about another matter—his promise to pursue an ethical foreign policy? Does he support the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary in opposing the resumption of the sale of arms to Pakistan until democratic guarantees are in place, or is he going to support the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, which appear willing to put profits before conscience?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's question is based on a misunderstanding since, as far as I am aware, there is no dispute between Government Departments. The same rules will apply as apply to any arms sales, but as far as I am aware, there are no proposed sales taking place.

Mr. James Wray: I know that it is outwith the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, but I should like him to assure the House that there will be a fair and just decision regarding the entry to Britain by Michael Tyson. I am appalled by the way that the four candidates for London mayor have used Mike Tyson as a political whipping-boy, and I am concerned regarding the economic effect that it will have on hoteliers and the service industry in Manchester.

The Prime Minister: Anyone would be ill advised to use him as a whipping-boy. I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in boxing, but the matter is being dealt with by the immigration service, and it must deal with it according to its rules, in the normal way. That is the proper thing to do—to play it by the book.

Mr. Keith Simpson: The Home Secretary has described the English as very aggressive and violent. Does the Prime Minister agree?

The Prime Minister: That is a complete misconstruction of what the Home Secretary said. I say this as one very peaceful English person to another— [Interruption.] Well, I was born in Scotland but brought

up in England—I am delighted to say—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with the Home Secretary that the last thing that we want is a resurgence of English nationalism. I am British, and proud to be British.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Prime Minister's Government has, since May 1997, dealt with many of the bad policies that we inherited from 18 years of Tory rule. Will he look at an issue that is causing housing problems in many parts of the country—the fact that we treat VAT on new build totally differently from VAT on improvements and repairs to our housing stock? Is it not time that we had parity, to enable us to deal with our housing in a better way?

The Prime Minister: I think I should treat that as an early Budget submission and leave it to the good offices of the Chancellor.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Sussex the bodies of my constituents are being transported around the county, from overflowing hospital mortuaries, in vans that are normally used to transport rubbish to the local tip? Is he aware that the only reason we have any empty intensive care beds is the lack of staff to attend to them; or that at Worthing hospital, where we already have some of the longest waiting times in the entire country, all elective surgery has been cancelled, affecting particularly harshly my many elderly residents?
Will the Prime Minister now apologise to my constituents and to all the NHS staff who have been caused great distress and suffering? Will he apologise, rather than continuing to con them with these soundbites about the NHS never having been better than under Labour?

The Prime Minister: What I said was that there were real problems in the national health service, and that we were tackling them. For example, there are 100 more critical care beds, which include intensive care beds, this year than last. In all parts of the country we are trying to bring in more doctors and more nurses, but as the hon. Gentleman's constituents would know, it takes time to train doctors and nurses and we are tackling these problems.

Mr. Loughton: How much longer?

The Prime Minister: It will take time, but the hon. Gentleman should remember, when he is talking about waiting lists, that waiting lists are now 80,000 below the level that we inherited from the Government whom he supported.

Ms Rosie Winterton: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, child poverty trebled under the previous Government. Is he also aware that the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that, within two years, 800,000 children will be lifted out of poverty as a result of this Government's initiatives? However, the Child Poverty Action Group warns that more may still need to be done to abolish child poverty altogether within


20 years. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ministers are aware of these findings and work together closely to achieve the target that he has set?

The Prime Minister: I am pleased that the Child Poverty Action Group has indicated that our policies will indeed lift children out of poverty. That helps to correct some of the reports published recently that were mainly based on statistics up to the time we came to office. As a result of the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the increased child benefit, we will lift a very substantial number of children out of poverty. That is only the first step. The other thing is to make sure that we carry on the new deal, so that we carry on giving work, hope and opportunity to young people.
It is appalling, but true, that every single one of those policies was opposed by the Conservative party. Indeed, last week, it made it clear that it was opposed to the minimum wage. People will go into the next election knowing, if the Tories win, that if they have a minimum wage, it will be taken away from them; if they have the working families tax credit, it will be taken away from them; the extra child benefit will be taken away from them and the new deal will be scrapped. Only someone with the misjudgment of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) could have that as his election programme.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what Blairism is?

The Prime Minister: It had its first outing on 1 May 1997 and resulted in an election victory and a majority of 179.

Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend recall a year ago the constant dire warnings from Conservative Members of the adverse effects of the introduction of the national minimum wage? Job losses and worse were predicted. Will he now confirm that independent reports have indicated that the national minimum wage has given 2 million people increases in their pay packets, and there has been an increase in employment of 130,000? Indeed, in Luton, we have seen a drop in youth unemployment of 67 per cent. and large employers, such as Whitbread, have thoroughly welcomed the minimum wage and say that it was introduced well and without any adverse effects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all that suggests that the verbiage from Conservative Members on the minimum wage is about as reliable as their verbiage on tax?

The Prime Minister: Employment is up by more than 700,000 since the election and long-term unemployment has halved. That is an excellent result. My hon. Friend is quite right. The minimum wage has not had any of the adverse impacts that were proclaimed by the Conservative party. The truth is that Conservative Members opposed it

because it was an act of fairness. What they do not understand is that, in a modern economy and modern society, fairness and prosperity go together.

Mr. William Hague: On Monday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said of a particular promise that the right hon. Gentleman had made:
The commitment he has made … still stands.
That was about the Prime Minister's promise to hold a referendum on proportional representation in this Parliament. So when are we having the referendum?

The Prime Minister: As I explained the last time the right hon. Gentleman asked me about this, as a result of the Jenkins report it is not possible to have a referendum on that particular proposal prior to the election. However, our commitment still stands and the debate goes on.

Mr. Hague: It was a very simple question, and the Prime Minister said earlier that he had the answers to my further questions. Before the last election, he said:
We have made it clear all the way through that we are committed to a referendum and we are committed to it as part of our programme for the next Parliament".
The Government's annual report says that item 130, which is a referendum on voting systems, is "on course." When will that happen? As the Prime Minister has now consulted the whole Labour party on that matter, will he tell us what the result was?

The Prime Minister: We said that we would have a commission, which has looked into the matter and reported. We shall of course abide by the commitments that we have made.

Mr. Hague: Has the Prime Minister seen the Home Secretary's comments? I shall have to turn to another page of my notes for them, but they are well worth waiting for. He said that the results of Labour's grassroots consultation exercise on the voting system, which showed a five-to-one majority against change,
pretty accurately reflects the mood throughout the party towards PR".
Does the Prime Minister agree with that, and if so, why does he not now get on and hold the referendum so that the Conservative party and the Labour party can campaign together against this whole crazy idea?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly looking for the issues on which he can unite with others. As for the Home Secretary's comments, I find them extremely interesting. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] That is a compliment.
As for the Leader of the Opposition's strictures on the Labour party, I shall offer him some advice. I would bother less about the Labour party than about the party that he is leading. It is not surprising that he wants to give me advice about the Labour party when the biggest queue is the one to get people out of the Conservative party. I think that he realises that, in future, although he will no


doubt look for all sorts of cross-party issues, he should look to managing his party before he seeks to manage mine.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): Further to the earlier exchanges on the NHS, would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff at the Conquest hospital in Hastings, who, faced with a doubling of emergency admissions over the past three weeks, have achieved the outcome that no one in need has been turned away? In welcoming the significant increase in funding that has made that possible, will he treat with contempt the whingeing by the Tories, who ran down the NHS when they were in power and whose big idea now is more about offering privatisation than encouragement to the staff who are working so hard?

The Prime Minister: It is absolutely right to say that as a result of extra investment the NHS will get better— I am delighted that that is happening in Hastings—but there is still a long way to go. Hospitals, particularly in some inner-city areas, are still coping with enormous pressures, and we must relieve them.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that the key issue is the distinction between the policy that we have and the Conservatives' policy. I shall again quote the Conservative health spokesman, who said of the Tories' plans:
What we are proposing will revolutionise private health care. What we are starting is perhaps a Trojan horse because with the patients guarantee, most of them haven't thought through the implications of what we are doing.
We have thought them through. They mean that anyone facing one of a number of non-urgent operations, including cataracts, hernias, and hip replacements, will be forced to take out private health insurance. It is impossible to do that, and the Tories go down that path because of their tax guarantee. They say that they will cut taxes in

any set of circumstances. That is the biggest example of their lurch to the right and is part of the new extremism of the Conservative party. Hon. Members should not take my word for that; they should take the word of certain Tory Members. Their tax guarantee means that the Tories know that they cannot pledge to spend more on the health service.
I say again that, for all the difficulties in the health service that we are working on, the choice is clear— modernise it or privatise it.

Mr. John Bercow: Given his professed commitment to freedom of information and the fact that there is no reference in the legislation or the regulations to any such power, how does the Prime Minister justify the Government's decision to prevent local parents from seeing the list of feeder school ballot petitioners in Ripon?

The Prime Minister: I do not know the answer to the detailed question, but I am perfectly prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him it. The real difference between the system now and the one before is that, previously, local authorities could decide to close these schools, but now the decision is left to parents by ballot. I may say that no such school has been closed.

Mr. Stephen Pound: The Prime Minister earlier referred to people suffering. He must be aware that there are many today shivering in misery, with despair deep in their bones, who feel that they have no future and who turn their faces sadly to the wall. Can he offer balm of Gilead or some soothing words to the Conservative party?

Madam Speaker: Order. I made a new year's resolution to be much nicer to my colleagues, but I will not allow the Prime Minister to respond to that question.

Senator Pinochet

Miss Ann Widdecombe: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances of his decisions in respect of General Pinochet.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The current position is as follows: Senator Pinochet was arrested in London on 16 October 1998, pursuant to a warrant issued by the fifth central magistrates court in Madrid, and he has been held since that date on bail.
On 14 April 1999, following the second judgment of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords the previous month, I issued a second authority to proceed in respect of offences of torture and conspiracy to torture alleged to have been committed by Senator Pinochet after December 1988. On 16 May last year, Senator Pinochet's solicitors applied for permission for a judicial review of my decision. The state of Senator Pinochet's health was not among the grounds advanced by his legal representatives.
At the hearing on 27 May 1999, the application for permission for judicial review against me was dismissed. The extradition hearing took place between 27 and 30 September at the Bow Street magistrates court. On 8 October, the Bow Street magistrates committed Senator Pinochet on all charges to await my decision on surrender.
Reports about Senator Pinochet's medical condition were taken into account by me in taking both decisions on the authorities to proceed, but at those stages I had no reason to doubt his fitness to stand trial. Since the authority-to-proceed stages, Senator Pinochet has not made direct representations to me about his medical condition. However, on 14 October last year, representations were submitted by the Chilean embassy, attaching recent medical reports on Senator Pinochet. They suggested that there had been a recent and significant deterioration in his medical condition.
I have a clear legal duty to operate the Extradition Act 1989 in full. In the light of the information from the Chilean embassy, that duty included involving myself in and informing myself fully of the true facts about Senator Pinochet's health. I therefore asked him to undergo a thorough and extensive medical examination, to be undertaken by an independent team of clinicians. Senator Pinochet gave his consent. He was entitled to the usual patient confidentiality, and he has chosen to exercise that right. He did however agree to the disclosure of the report to me and to the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities.
On the advice of the Government's chief medical officer, I appointed a team of clinicians of outstanding national and international reputation. Its members were Sir John Grimley Evans, professor of clinical geratology of the university of Oxford; Dr. Michael Denham, consultant physician in geriatric medicine at Northwick Park hospital; Andrew Lees, professor of neurology at the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery in London; and Maria Wyke, a consultant neuropsychologist. It was established that none of them had any inappropriate personal interest in the case. Their medical examination of the senator took place on

5 January this year. My officials received the team's report late on 6 January. I considered it with advice over last weekend.
The unequivocal and unanimous conclusion of the three medical practitioners and the consultant neuropsychologist was that, following a recent deterioration in the state of Senator Pinochet's health, which seems to have occurred principally during September and October 1999, he is at present unfit to stand trial, and that no change to that position can be expected. I have therefore told Senator Pinochet's legal representatives that, subject to any representations that I may receive, I am minded to take the view that no purpose would be served by continuing the present extradition proceedings.
I have written formally to the Crown Prosecution Service as representative of the kingdom of Spain, to the Government of Chile, as well as to France, Belgium and Switzerland, each of these three countries having outstanding extradition requests before us. Letters have also gone to a number of human rights organisations, inviting them to submit any further representations that they consider that I should take into account, and to do so within the next seven days.
Throughout these proceedings, I have not been able to make any oral statement to the House because of my quasi-judicial role in respect of extradition matters and because of the sub judice rules of the House. I have always made it clear that I would make a full oral statement when the matter has finally been resolved, which of course I shall do. Meanwhile, I must maintain an open mind on this matter, including the representations that I may receive. I hope that the House will understand that until the matter is finally concluded, what I can say is bound heavily to be circumscribed.

Miss Widdecombe: Although I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, may I draw his attention to the widespread concern, which is shared on both sides of the House, that we had to learn of this important decision from the press late last night, and not from a statement from himself to the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it was necessary for us to learn of these matters from the press, bearing in mind that it was not through any leak but rather through a formal Home Office statement, which could surely have been made by a Minister to the House?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at all stages throughout these proceedings he has had the discretion to take the medical condition of Senator Pinochet into account? Will he tell us when a magistrate first commented that Senator Pinochet was unable to attend court? Will he explain why, at that stage, he did not commission the sort of report which he has now, at the final stages, commissioned?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the cost of this entire business has been? He must realise that there has been an immense expenditure of public money, of time and of effort—there has been anxiety on all sides of the argument—in a situation that will result in the end in the senator probably being returned to Chile, which could have happened at a much earlier stage had the right hon. Gentleman had the decisiveness to approach the issue properly? Will he accept that from the start this matter has been handled in a bungling and incompetent way, and


that at the end of it no one is satisfied? Spain is not satisfied, Chile is not satisfied, and the British people have been put through an awful lot of expense for no result whatsoever.
I shall be interested to hear from the Secretary of State exactly what this seven days means. [HON. MEMBERS: "A week."] It probably does not mean a week. Will he confirm that, if a legal challenge is mounted in the next seven days, the proceedings could go on well beyond the week in question, and that Senator Pinochet could continue to be held in this country for some time to come? When the Home Secretary talks about seven days, he is not giving the real position.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how on earth he has managed to come to a series of such conflicting decisions in so many cases recently? He arrested Senator Pinochet when the senator was in bed recovering from an operation; by contrast, he let a suspected Nazi war criminal walk out of this country even before the police investigation had been completed. Furthermore, even when he had the clearest possible admissions, he took no action in respect of cold war spies. Does he have any grip on his Department? Does he have any consistency? Does he have any logic? Is not he dealing with this matter in the most shameful way for a man of his high office?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady asked me a series of questions, and, subject to what I said in my statement, I shall do my best to respond to each of them. On the issue of the statement last night, as I have already explained, because these matters are still under consideration by me in my quasi-judicial role and because of the sub judice rules of the House, it has not been the practice—nor, I suggest, could it have been—in these extradition proceedings or in any other for there to be a sequence of oral statements to the House about the decisions that have been made. That has been accepted by the House and has been the practice of previous Home Secretaries and Home Office Ministers for very good and understandable reasons.
From a personal point of view, that has been frustrating, because I have always been ready to come to the House to make oral statements whenever the need has arisen. I would have preferred to do so in this case.
A major distinction should be drawn between the decisions for which a Home Secretary is responsible in other areas and those for which he is responsible in a quasi-judicial capacity. It is inevitable in this process that the parties to extradition proceedings must be informed of decisions before Parliament, and therefore the public, can be informed. We had to inform the parties last night. It was my hope and intention that a proper written statement, which would also have been reported to the House as a written statement, could have been made this morning. Not because of any direct action by the Home Office, but because it emerged late last night that the news of my decision in this case—that I was minded to complete these extradition proceedings—was about to be made public, I deemed it appropriate to issue the statement last night. Otherwise, there would have been considerable confusion about the matter.
The right hon. Lady asked whether, at all stages, I had a discretion to take the senator's medical condition into account. At all stages I have been under a duty to take all circumstances into account in respect of the senator, including his medical condition and any representations that have been made to me about it.
A full estimate of the cost of the extradition proceedings cannot be made until the matter is finally at an end. There are currently legal proceedings still before the High Court.
I am surprised that the right hon. Lady did not properly appreciate the fact that we are signatories to a number of conventions on extradition, including the European convention on extradition. It was her Government who passed the Extradition Act 1989, which imposes the clearest possible duties on any Secretary of State, on the Government and on other law enforcement authorities in respect of extradition requests from states. It is to her great discredit that she suggested that it was I who ordered Senator Pinochet's arrest; that is not the case.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked what "seven days" meant. "Seven days" means seven days during which I am able to consider representations. The outcome remains to be seen, because although initial and final decisions about authority to proceed are made by the Secretary of State, the extradition process is also subject to legal proceedings. That is the nature of the process in this country, and it cannot be changed in respect of any individual application.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not significant that, in all that barrage of questions, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) expressed no concern for the victims of the terror of Pinochet during his years in office, when he was ready to deny justice to thousands? Because of that, we must be a model of justice in this respect—as, indeed, I believe my right hon. Friend has been.
Does my right hon. Friend's statement imply that he believes Senator Pinochet has a veto over who receives copies of his medical report? Surely representations can only properly be made by the interested organisations if they have full sight of the report. The interests of justice will be met not by a self-serving disclosure to only the Home Secretary and the Crown Prosecution Service, but by disclosure to all groups with an interest in the case, including countries that have sought the extradition, and bodies such as Amnesty International which have intervened. If they are to make proper representations, they must have the full medical facts.

Mr. Straw: In this case, as in all other extradition cases, I have sought to follow the rule of law and to make decisions as fairly and carefully as possible. I have followed the same procedure in respect of the medical report as I have in respect of other extradition applications. I was advised that, at this stage of the proceedings, the question of to whom the report could be submitted—other than me, and the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities—was a matter for Senator Pinochet.
As for representations by other interested parties, I am bound—not least by section 12 of the 1989 Act, but also by a wider discretion—to take into account all representations made to me. That applies both to representations relating directly to the senator's medical condition—I have before me a full, thorough and independent medical report—and to representations relating to other matters.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I entirely appreciate the Home Secretary's


quasi-judicial position, but will he tell us on what legal basis—the 1989 Act, or common law—his prospective decision will be made, if he proceeds as he has suggested that he will? Also, will the decision that Senator Pinochet may be unfit to stand trial be based on evidence that not just the Crown Prosecution Service, as the prosecution authority, but the Spanish Government, as the authority requesting extradition, should be entitled to see? It was the Chilean Government, with the assent of General Pinochet, who asked for the medical matters to be taken into consideration.
Without going into more detail, can the Home Secretary tell us whether it is a question of the senator's mental or physical health? Can he tell us specifically whether the test of unfitness to stand trial that applies in this country is the test that would apply in Chile if the senator returned there? In any event, can he confirm that, whatever his final decision, it will not alter the decision of the courts last year that heads of state are not immune from either prosecution or extradition if they have committed offences such as those of which General Pinochet has been alleged to be guilty, and on the basis of which the extradition has been sought?

Mr. Straw: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first and last questions, I and any other Secretary of State have to take decisions in extradition matters on the legal basis of the Extradition Act 1989, the extradition conventions to which we are party in so far as they are regarded as forming part of our domestic law and the weight of judicial authority, including last year's decision by the Appellate Committee of the other place in respect of the applications.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about fitness to stand trial, it is a decision for me and has to be so, given the stage that has been reached in the extradition proceedings. Among the criteria that I took into account were whether the senator would be in a position to follow the proceedings, to give intelligible instructions to those representing him and to give a coherent statement of his case, and of recollection.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I vehemently support the careful and, indeed, impeccable way in which the Home Secretary has gone about the matter, but, in a personal capacity—not as chairman of the all-party Latin America group—may I say that many people in the continent of South America, many of whom have cause to loathe Senator Pinochet and what he stands for, will nevertheless think, rightly or wrongly, that the decision should be made not in Madrid, not in London, but in Santiago? Will the Home Secretary take that into consideration?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the way in which I have dealt with the matter. I hope that I can continue to work in that way until it reaches a conclusion. As for his other points, of course I note what he says.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my appreciation that the Home Secretary did eventually sanction the medical examination of Senator Pinochet? He will be aware that I represented to him on

24 and 26 November my concern about the senator's health. In his consideration of the representations that will be made, will he bear in mind at all times the interests of the people of Chile? Is it not true that Chile is now a democracy in every sense of the word? It is conducting an impeccable presidential election campaign. Have not the Chilean people and the Government whom the newly elected president will have the honour of leading the right to put the matter behind them and to look to the future with hope and every confidence?

Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I note what he says about sanctioning the medical examination. I was aware, of course, of his interest in the matter. I did ensure, as did my officials, that we proceeded as speedily as possible in the complicated process of identifying and assembling a team of independent expert clinicians and then getting them together to make the examination.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have set out— for example, on 15 April 1999 in the Official Report of the House of Commons—the considerations that I took into account when I issued my second authority to proceed.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I offer what limited support I can to what has fallen from the Home Secretary. Those of us who made common cause with him at protests and vigils immediately after the murder of Allende and the nightmare that followed in Chile know that he personally has nothing to prove to himself, to the House or to the international community when it comes to expressing opposition to that regime, but will he reflect on what has been achieved as a result of what he has done and the steps that he has taken in the past 15 months? That odious man has effectively been tried in an English court—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I shall deal with Conservative Members' comments in a moment.
The man's crimes, and the infamy that he has committed, have been revealed in that court, and that court has found in the clearest possible terms that, in respect of those crimes, he has the clearest possible case to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] The court has found as a matter of law—

Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to ask his question now. Other hon. Members are seeking to ask questions, and a full statement follows this one. May I have a question now for the Home Secretary?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My Lord—[Laughter.] Madam Speaker, my question is this: does the Home Secretary believe that the case has revealed a very dark side to Conservative Members? Does he agree that, although there are honourable exceptions among them, the case has emphasised the fact that hon. Members sit on two sides in the House?

Mr. Straw: My hon. and learned Friend and the House will forgive me if, in the light of my comments on my quasi-judicial role, I do not follow him.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Although I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming the fact that the Home Secretary now feels minded to bring this


unfortunate fiasco to a conclusion, will he confirm that the matter could drag on for months, and that that sick man could be detained in the United Kingdom for many weeks and months? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of how long the process is likely to continue?
Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), is it not true that every political party in Chile has said that they should be entitled to resolve the matter, and that the matter should not be usurped by the British Government, the British Parliament or the British courts?
Is it not bizarre that the Government seek reconciliation between white and black in South Africa, and Jew and Arab in the middle east, and even invite us to sit down with republican terrorists in Northern Ireland, but deny the people of Chile the right to reconcile their differences there?

Mr. Straw: For the reason that I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I shall not respond directly to the hon. Gentleman's comments—if he will forgive me—except to say that, on the issue of the time scale, I have not only endeavoured to secure but have secured a situation in which, after receiving the original reports from the Chilean embassy, I acted as quickly as I could consistent with fairness and care in the case. I shall continue to do that, as I recognise that Senator Pinochet and his representatives would be anxious to secure a conclusion to the matter as quickly as possible.
I have to take fully into account all representations that I may receive. In this type of decision, I am subject to review by the courts, and I cannot anticipate whether that will occur.

Mr. Tony Benn: When the Home Secretary comes to reach his decision, will he consider this aspect? Last year, Britain fought two wars against brutal dictators; many innocent people died, and it was justified on humanitarian grounds. Now, we have someone before us charged with the brutal torture of people, but, apparently, the Home Secretary is minded to release him on humanitarian grounds. Is it not a fact that, whatever judicial considerations have to enter his mind, it is a political decision? If he takes it in such a way as to release that man, it will undermine the ethical foreign policy and the argument that law should be the basis of international relations, and also throw some doubt on his long-held view on applying the fast-track principle of justice when offenders come to light.

Mr. Straw: While it is perfectly possible for people to make representations to me on humanitarian grounds, in this particular circumstance I have come to my preliminary conclusion—that the senator should not be extradited to the kingdom of Spain—on the narrower grounds of his unfitness to stand trial on the basis of the medical evidence that I have received, which is different. Where representations are made to me on wider grounds, I will consider them fully before coming to my final decision.
I must part company from my right hon. Friend when it comes to his assertion that these decisions are political decisions. They are not easy decisions, but I believe that

successive holders of my office have sought to exercise the responsibilities placed on them by this House in a quasi-judicial way and to weigh up the facts of each of these and similar cases and the legal duties upon them. That is precisely what I have sought to do in this case.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are aware that, from time to time, this country has had to welcome the leaders of Governments who have been responsible for genocide, terrorism and killings in their own country. However, that is not the point that I wish to make.
Bearing in mind that the medical experts appointed by the Home Secretary have found unanimously that the life senator General Pinochet is not fit to face trial, why has the right hon. Gentleman delayed taking a decision— subject, of course, to the decisions of the courts of law in this country—that it is his recommendation that Senator Pinochet be allowed to return home to Chile, where if the people of Chile wish to judge him, it is their duty and responsibility to do so and not that of this country or of Spain?

Mr. Straw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is hard to lay the charge of delay against me. The medical report was undertaken on 5 January, and it was received by my officials late last Thursday, 6 January. I received the report on 8 January, when it was in my weekend box. I considered it, and made decisions on the matter over the weekend. My preliminary decisions were communicated to the senator's representatives and the other interested parties yesterday. The process has taken, altogether, five days. I do not think that it is appropriate to categorise that as delay.
If the hon. Gentleman is asking me why I have made a preliminary decision and not a final one, it is on the basis of clear advice that I have received, not least because there are other parties to the proceedings who are bound to be entitled to make representations to me before I reach a final decision.

Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind that the law in Chile is such that it is most unlikely that Pinochet will be tried for crimes against humanity, despite what was said earlier, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the following question. Is there not a danger that the wrong kind of message will go out to every mass murderer and torturer around the world, including Saddam Hussein, that the time will come when they, too, having lost power, will not be brought to justice? If Pinochet could be brought to justice in Spain, would not that be the different type of the lesson that we want all those mass murderers and torturers to learn—that there is no escaping from their crimes?

Mr. Straw: I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, but I hope the message that goes out is that this country is one which follows the rule of law.

Sir Norman Fowler: Does not the Home Secretary feel that the public interest would have been better served had he returned General Pinochet to be dealt with by the democratically elected Government of Chile? Is it the Home Secretary's case that General


Pinochet's medical condition deteriorated as a result of his detention; or is it possible that he was never medically fit to stand trial at any stage?

Mr. Straw: I took into account the consideration that the right hon. Gentleman invites me to take into account, and that was made clear in the decisions that I set out in full in the Official Report on 15 April 1999; but, judging the matter as a whole, I came to the view that it was right to issue the second authority to proceed, and that decision was acknowledged to be within my authority to make when the divisional court of the High Court decided not to entertain an application for a judicial review of that decision made by Senator Pinochet's solicitors.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the nature of Senator Pinochet's deterioration. As I said in the statement, the unanimous and unequivocal conclusion of the three medical practitioners and the consultant neuropsychologist was that there had been a recent deterioration in the state of Senator Pinochet's health, which seems to have occurred principally during September and October 1999.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I, too, commend the sensitive manner in which my right hon. Friend has dealt with this complicated matter? Did he hear the Chilean ambassador on the "Today" programme this morning, suggesting that, if he were returned, Senator Pinochet could well face prosecution in Chile? Will he bear that in mind when weighing the medical evidence that he now has against the assertion by the diplomat that Senator Pinochet may recover in the next few days or weeks?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about the way in which I have conducted this matter.
On the Chilean ambassador's remarks, the question whether the Senator is fit to stand trial has to be considered on the basis of the evidence before me and in accordance with the law of this country, not that of Chile.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: For most of the past 15 or so months, General Pinochet has been kept in Surrey. The security, housing, policing and other costs must be enormous. How much is being spent, and who will pay? The ratepayers and council tax payers of one county would be being treated very unfairly if the bill fell on their shoulders alone. If Surrey is to pay, will the Home Secretary ensure that it is suitably compensated?

Mr. Straw: As I explained in answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), it is not possible to give a final assessment of the cost until the proceedings have been concluded. I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman with as much information as I can. It has also always been open to all hon. Members to table parliamentary questions for written answer about the current, up-to-date costs, and that can continue to be done.
As for the costs falling on the Surrey constabulary, it is open to any police service to make an application to the Secretary of State if it feels that it has borne a special cost beyond the normal contingencies that police services have to bear; those are considered sympathetically—that will be done by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and myself— and are sometimes accepted and sometimes not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Home Secretary. We shall now take the statement.

Armed Forces (ECHR)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the outcome of our review of the implications of a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights as it affects the armed forces.
The House will recall that, on 27 September 1999, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in a case brought by four ex-service personnel of the United Kingdom armed forces who had each been discharged on the grounds of their homosexuality. My predecessor issued a statement at the time making it clear that the Government accepted the judgment of the court— as British Governments have always complied with such rulings—and that we would be studying carefully the implications of the decision. He also announced that those cases already in the system—that is, personnel in the process of being discharged on grounds of homosexuality—would be put on hold.
In the light of the court's decisions, it was clear that the existing policy was not legally sustainable. We accordingly asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to set in hand an urgent review of policy in that area. That review has now been completed, and I am able to announce the outcome today.
Our starting point has been to develop a revised policy that preserves the operational effectiveness of our armed forces, respects the rights of the individual, and takes full account of the court ruling. The chiefs of staff accept the need to change the existing policy and have been fully involved in the process of developing a revised policy. I have discussed the subject with them on a number of occasions. They have endorsed the outcome of the review.
We have drawn on the experience of other countries— in particular, Australia—and have taken account of the last formal study of the subject in the United Kingdom, undertaken in 1995. Moreover, we have reflected the court's conclusion that legally we are obliged to adopt an approach that regards sexual orientation as essentially a private matter for the individual.
There is, of course, no doubt that the armed forces are a unique institution and occupy a unique place in our society. We expect a lot of them. They cannot choose the people they work and live with, often in difficult, cramped conditions and for sustained periods. Operational effectiveness depends on team cohesion and the maintenance of trust and loyalty. As a result, standards of behaviour are imposed on members of the armed forces that can be more demanding than those required by society at large. That is why we need a code of conduct to govern the attitude and approach to the personal relationships of those serving in the armed forces.
The code will apply across the forces, regardless of service, rank, gender or sexual orientation. It will provide a clear framework within which people in the services can live and work, and it will complement existing policies, such as zero tolerance towards harassment, discrimination and bullying. I emphasise that we are not tightening the rules on heterosexual relationships.
The code is not an abstract legal document full of rules and regulations. It has been developed by service experts who understand fully the operational needs and

day-to-day practicalities of the armed forces. Personal relationships do not ever lend themselves to precise prescription and the code recognises explicitly that
It is not practicable to list every type of conduct that may constitute social misbehaviour".
Therefore, we have placed at the heart of the code what we call the service test, set out in the following terms:
Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service?
In using the code, commanding officers will have to apply the service test through the exercise of their good judgment, discretion and common sense—the essence of command and the effective management of people. I am arranging for copies of the code to be placed in the Library of the House.
The ECHR ruling makes it clear that the existing policy in relation to homosexuality must change. As all personal behaviour will be regulated by the code of conduct with the object of maintaining the operational effectiveness of the three services, there is no longer a reason to deny homosexuals the opportunity of a career in the armed forces. Accordingly, we have decided that it is right that the existing ban should be lifted. As no primary or secondary legislation is required, with effect from today, homosexuality will no longer be a bar to service in Britain's armed forces.
A range of briefing material is being issued to commanding officers to explain the code of conduct and to give them detailed guidance on how it should be implemented. That makes it clear that the chiefs of staff commend the principles of the new policy and are committed to ensuring that it works.
I recognise that there may be some concerns within the armed forces and elsewhere over this new policy, but I believe that the changes I have described offer the best way forward in terms of providing an approach that maintains operational effectiveness, is within the law, and recognises the rights of the individual.
Implementing the changes successfully will be a challenge for leadership at all levels in the armed forces, but such challenges are not new, and all three services will be equal to the task. With the commitment which is in place from the very highest levels of the chain of command, I am confident that our armed forces will adapt to the change in the professional manner for which they are rightly held in the very highest regard.
There will be those who would have preferred to continue to exclude homosexuals, but the law is the law. We cannot choose the decisions we implement. The status quo is simply not an option. The code centres on the paramount need to maintain the operational effectiveness of the armed forces. I have no doubt that it is the best way forward.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: First, I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me an early sight of his statement. I appreciate that courtesy and, given the nature of the subject, I am sure that the House will too.
The Secretary of State referred to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, and set out why the Government have decided to change existing policy. At the outset, may I say that I regret the nature of the ruling.


I have always believed—as did both the previous and present Governments—that we should follow the advice of the armed forces. That advice has always been that lifting the ban would adversely affect operational effectiveness.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to state that, because the armed forces have a special function and exist solely to protect our rights, a careful balance has always had to be struck. I regret that the court chose to dismiss the advice of the armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the matter has never been to do with prejudice, but with the operational effectiveness of our armed forces?
However, the fact is that the Government have decided to act on the ruling and to implement the change in policy by means of the code of conduct. As the Secretary of State said, they do so without having to introduce legislation or hold a debate. Today, we must focus simply on the code's practical implementation, in the hope that we can iron out what we perceive to be some of the major problems that may lie ahead.
The code is all about sexual behaviour, as the Secretary of State made clear. I agree with him that, in this context, the only way to write a code such as this is to make it as broad as possible and not to be specific. However, despite the guidance and advice in the statement, the matter boils down to a two-line service test, which in essence comprises only one sentence. How that test is operated will be critical. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore place the guidance and the advice to commanding officers in the Library of the House, so that hon. Members can see how he intends the code to operate in practice?
In addition, I believe that four questions must be answered if we are to understand how the code is to work, and whether it will change how the armed forces operate. The first question concerns the rights of all service men and women.
The issue was neatly summed up by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, now the Secretary of State for Scotland. In our last debate on this matter in 1996, he raised the case of a service woman who had asked him whether her rights would be protected if the ban were lifted. She explained that she would not now be expected to share intimate surroundings with a man, irrespective of whether he had sexual intentions towards her. She went on to ask how Parliament would protect her rights if she had to share accommodation with another woman whom she believed to be sexually attracted her. She said that the matter was not one of prejudice but about her rights to privacy—much as the Government have set out today.
I accept that the question is incredibly difficult to answer, as the Secretary of State said. However, now we have a code covering all sexual behaviour, both heterosexual and homosexual. What guidance has the Secretary of State given to commanding officers for dealing with such a situation? Furthermore, in dealing with such a matter, different services and units may implement the test set out by the right hon. Gentleman but arrive at very different solutions. That could lead to concerns in other units about injustice if they are not treated in exactly the same way as others.
Secondly, what provision has the Secretary of State made in the guidance to commanding officers about those placed in authority over junior leaders, cadets and other

young men and women who enter the armed forces at an early age? The right hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment concerning such matters during proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Does he agree that the nature of forces discipline and the way in which the forces operate, which gives huge power to those in authority, places an even greater duty of care than exists outside the forces? How will he deal with that, and what advice has he given?
Thirdly, how do the Government propose to deal with the disparity in approach between the three services as well as between units of each of the services? Recent cases such as the Army Air Corps colonel and a female lieutenant-commander in the Women's Royal Naval Service led to very different outcomes. Even though the colonel was acquitted at his court-martial, he was fired from the Army, while the lieutenant-commander has subsequently been promoted. Such disparities in treatment will have to be dealt with, particularly now that this has widened to such a degree.
As for those serving in the same unit, although problems and conflicts arising from relationships between different sexes have been contained—partly because there are fewer occasions when men and women are in command over each other—there is, as a result of the judgment, a possibility that same-sex relationships that develop quite legitimately outside the barracks or the ship may lead to conflicts and difficulties within those units, especially if the individuals are of different ranks. What guidelines has the Secretary of State given to commanding officers? What advice has he given them about how to deal with such relationships? Should they be declared immediately, and will the individuals be allowed to serve in the same unit or barrack room if challenged, for example, about the possibility of favouritism from others who may perceive there to be an issue?
Because of this huge change that will affect the behaviour of armed forces personnel, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a fundamental review of the effects of the policy at the earliest possibly opportunity? I believe that there should be. As and when the Conservative party returns to power, we will pledge to conduct such a review and act on the advice of the armed forces. I hope that the Secretary of State will do the same.
Surely one of the greatest concerns arising from the judgment is the way in which the convention is being applied to the military. There is a danger that issues such as the role of women in the front line and even our training policy could be decided by the European Court of Human Rights and not by our own Government and armed forces. Has the Secretary of State discussed the matter with other signatories to the convention, many of whom have opt-outs regarding its operation? If he has not, will he undertake to do so as a matter of urgency?
In conclusion, all of us can only hope that there will be no ill effects as a result of this change of policy and that the Government's policy will succeed in resolving the matters that may arise. I hope that the Government will pledge to the House today to undertake whatever action is necessary to rectify any problems that may arise immediately.

Mr. Hoon: I begin by welcoming the significant shift that has been obvious from the comments of the


Opposition Front Bench in recent days. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) originally appeared to condemn out of hand the judges of the European Court of Human Rights and questioned their right to decide this sort of question, so I am delighted that he has now accepted the decision. He has set out a series of practical and sensible observations about the way in which it should operate. In particular, he emphasised the paramount importance of maintaining the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. I emphasised that point in my earlier comments, and it is also emphasised in the code of conduct.
The hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that the code is set out in broad terms. It is inevitable, when dealing with delicate questions of personal relationships, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, that commanding officers in particular will have to operate extremely sensitively in dealing with these matters. Again, that is set out in the code of conduct, but it is not practicable to list every type of conduct that might constitute social misbehaviour. Commanding officers already have to deal with issues according to the circumstances in which they arise, as is inevitable when dealing with delicate matters.
I am willing to place the guidance issued to commanding officers in the Library of the House of Commons, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the opportunity to see the detailed way in which commanding officers are to be guided. Ultimately, however, commanding officers must have regard to the circumstances with which they must deal, and they will apply the code of conduct in a sensitive and sensible way according to the cases that confront them.
I was a little disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that we would need to review policy. It is difficult to see where a review might lead. I have made it clear, and he appeared to accept it, that it was necessary to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. If he accepts the importance of implementing the decision, it is difficult to see how it can be reviewed, other than by saying—as, I regret, the hon. Gentleman originally appeared to—that we should seek not to implement it. We are bound to implement the decision, and we have done so in a way that is wholly consistent with operational effectiveness.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the United Kingdom ratified the European convention on human rights as long ago as 1951. It has been accepted by all UK Governments ever since, and decisions have been complied with by successive Governments. As far as discussions with other signatory states are concerned, the hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to know that only one NATO nation appears to have a formal ban on homosexuals being members of the armed forces. Clearly, this has not been a problem for NATO nations.
The hon. Gentleman properly emphasised the point that problems between the sexes are every bit as sensitive, delicate and difficult as problems that might occur involving members of the same sex. The code of conduct deals firmly with such matters on a non-discriminatory basis, which is the only way to proceed. I am pleased to welcome the hon. Gentleman's measured comments. We need to emphasise the need to preserve operational

effectiveness in our armed forces to ensure that British forces maintain the excellent standards admired around the world.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I was one of the Members who, when this matter was debated in 1996, supported the amendment tabled by Edwina Currie, to whom I pay tribute.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the common-sense decision that he has taken this afternoon. Since it stems directly from a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, I may point out that, had the Conservative party remained in power, it would have had to make a decision on the matter. As Conservative Governments accepted the authority of the European Court of Human Rights throughout their periods in office, it is difficult to see what other decision they could have come to.
Over the years—indeed, centuries—homosexuals have served at every level in our armed forces with loyalty and distinction. Is it not better, therefore, to accept that fact than pretend that it does not exist? It will not do for people to say that they oppose discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in principle while they act differently in practice.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. He is right to say that as this was a significant decision by the European Court of Human Rights, it was necessary for the Government to implement it. I am equally grateful to the service chiefs for the constructive way in which they have approached a change in policy. It is not enough just to analyse legally the decision of the court; it is necessary to find a policy by which to implement it in the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to the service chiefs for their constructive and positive approach to this matter. They have drawn up the code of conduct, which will allow us both to preserve operational effectiveness and to ensure that the rights of individuals are properly protected, as my right hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I too thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome his announcement. The European Court of Human Rights has shown that homosexual service in the armed forces of the United Kingdom is an issue of civil liberties. In that respect, the sexual orientation of an individual should be no bar to service, either in recruitment or promotion.
I have served with hon. Members on both sides of the House in the parliamentary armed forces scheme and have heard about some of the concerns of members of the armed forces. In my constituency, I have also heard about those concerns, but our armed forces must reflect the make-up of the modern society from which they are drawn. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that there are no occasions on which men or women have direct control over each other. That is clearly wrong. Every warship in the Royal Navy is run according to the chain of command, whether that is male or female.
The Secretary of State pointed out that the implementation of the new code of conduct will be a challenge for the leadership of our armed forces. He is


right. Does he agree that great sensitivity to the concerns of gay and straight personnel will need to be exercised, if a cultural sea-change is to be achieved without damaging the morale and efficiency of our armed forces?
The Secretary of State referred to the experience of other nations which have implemented such a code of conduct. Will he tell the House which other countries he has consulted? I met some Australians this week, who confirmed that their overall experience in this matter was positive.
I have a few questions for the Secretary of State. Does he agree that the delay in changing the policy, and the continuation of the Tory fight with the European Court means that the retrospective claims for compensation for dismissed personnel are likely to be substantial? Is he aware that £60 million has already been paid to 5,000 service women, who were obliged to leave the service on the ground of pregnancy?
Does he agree that, as MOD budgets are already tight, the Government's belated realisation that the UK armed forces should reflect their society is likely to cost the MOD money? How many compensation cases does he expect? What is his estimate of the cost?
Finally, will he confirm that, in the UK, if people are fit for the task—whether they are black or white, male or female, straight or gay—they should be welcome in our armed forces?

Mr. Hoon: I shall deal solely with the specific questions put by the hon. Gentleman towards the end of his observations. We delayed only as long as it took to review properly the implications of the court's decision, and to consider extremely carefully their effect on the armed forces. We obviously wanted to ensure that we agreed on a code of conduct that was accepted by the service chiefs and by the armed forces. We took the minimum amount of time to do that. I agree that any continuing uncertainty would have cost money, but, perhaps more crucially, it would have left the armed forces unsure as to which policy they were required to implement. I do not accept that there was undue delay; there was a proper delay—consistent with the need to find the right answer.
I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman precise figures as to the cost of any claims for compensation, because we are still negotiating with those people who are affected. However, when that process has been completed, I am willing to write to him to give him an indication of the costs.

Laura Moffatt: I very much welcome the fact that the Government have accepted with good grace the ruling of the European Court. I look forward to reading, in the next defence White Paper, that sexual orientation will be included with all the other high ideals that we set for our society. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) having a fit of apoplexy, but we are a decent society now and we must reflect the way in which we live today. Unquestionably, the armed forces are up to that job—they are able to respond—but naturally there will be some concerns, especially among people from the lower ranks.
The Secretary of State has told us that the higher ranks are strongly committed to the programme, but will he answer two questions? First, what extra training has been

given to members of the higher ranks to enable them to ensure that the information gets through to others in a way that helps them to understand what this will mean for them in their working lives? Secondly, because of the unease from the ranks, is there any way in which people may be able to share some concerns—many of which are unreal? They would be much better put at ease by people who have been properly trained.
I very much welcome today's announcement.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations. I shall deal solely with her specific questions. On extra training, approximately 3,000 packs of detailed information and guidance for commanding officers have been sent out, and should have been opened in connection with the statement that I am making to the House today, so commanding officers will have detailed briefing, which they will pass down the chain of command.
I am confident that the concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned in her second question will be allayed by the clear leadership given by service chiefs. As I said earlier, I am extremely grateful to them for the leadership that they have shown in this difficult area.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he sounded deeply unconvincing when making his statement? Does he further accept that the announcement will be greeted with dismay through all three services, which surely, by their faithful and gallant service over generations, have earned the right to be exempted from these lunatic politically correct nostrums? Will he assure the House of Commons that he will listen very carefully to the chiefs as they report back to him, as this militarily disabling rule comes into force?

Mr. Hoon: I always listen with the greatest care to the hon. Gentleman's observations on the armed forces because I recognise that, in the course of a lifetime's interest in the armed forces, he has accumulated a good deal of knowledge. I am slightly concerned that he might just be out of touch on this question, and that he may not have reflected properly on his observations, especially in light of what the service chiefs have been saying on the subject. The service chiefs have made it clear that they endorse and support the code of conduct. They were largely responsible for its drafting. As the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, it is important that we find ways to ensure that the decision of the European Court is implemented in a way that is consistent with service effectiveness.
Therefore, I do not accept the observations that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has made. Sadly, they sound very much like the observations that were made by very many people—members of the Conservative party, perhaps not wholly familiar with the services—in relation to the admission of women to the armed forces. In the short time that I have been Secretary of State for Defence, I have learned how successful and effective women have been in the armed forces.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision and his announcement today will be very welcome indeed? First, it will be


welcome in upholding the authority of the European Court of Justice and its interpretation of the European convention on human rights, which is the basis on which we, as a party, fought the last general election and which has been part of our party policy for a long time.
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that, some years ago, from the Opposition Front Bench, I moved that homosexuality should not be regarded as grounds for debarment from service in the armed forces? I did so for two reasons. I did so, first, for the sake of the human rights of the individuals involved, whatever one may think of people's particular sexual preferences; and secondly, because it removed a major cause of blackmail, suspicion and unhappiness.
In the 1970s and 1980s, we had obvious examples, including the major scandalous trial in Cyprus, in which representatives of foreign powers—the cold war is irrelevant to this—were prepared to use what they perceived as weakness, shyness or disability to blackmail people to force them to release secrets. There are strong and powerful military reasons for accepting this proposal.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend tempts me to make a party political point about the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. I recall that Lord Hailsham and the late Keith Joseph conducted a campaign in the 1970s calling for its incorporation. It is unfortunate that some Conservative Members have forgotten their party's history. [Interruption.] It is suggested that they were not born, but I rather think that they were.
It is right and important that we find a mechanism for emphasising the rights of the individual while not in any way jeopardising the effectiveness of our service personnel. I am sure that this code of conduct, which was endorsed by the service chiefs, will achieve that.

Mr. Julian Brazier: If the chiefs of staff really have not conveyed to Ministers the sheer depths of the anger in the armed forces at being forced to share their homes—the cramped barracks and ships in which they often live—with practising homosexuals, will the Secretary of State say whether, in his forthcoming and fairly frequent meetings with his French counterpart, he will discuss the fact that France has a derogation from all matters connected with military discipline in the European convention on human rights? Are there any circumstances whatever impinging on the morale and effectiveness of our armed forces under which the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to stand up to the European Court and apply for us to have such a derogation?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman needs to study a little more carefully the way in which the European convention operates. He needs to understand that the French derogation was secured at the start of the process. Since 1951, no Government—neither Conservative nor Labour—have sought to negotiate the kind of derogation that he advocates. In reality, it is not possible to secure such a derogation after the event; it would not have any effect on decided cases. I made it clear in my opening remarks that it is not possible for Conservative Members to pick and choose the European Court decisions that they would implement. That is simply not possible.

Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcome to the many people

who have long argued and campaigned for lifting the ban on gays serving in the military. In 1998, I took part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and had numerous discussions over many months on this with various ranks. We discussed in detail how military discipline could cope with such a change and, although it was clear that there was resistance to change in all ranks of the Army, it was acknowledged that, when it came to the bottom line, military discipline and regulation would ensure that the code could be operated properly.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating ex-service men and women in the Rank Outsiders organisation on the dignified way in which they have campaigned so successfully on this issue? Will he also ensure that the new codes are monitored effectively, so that the House can have another opportunity to ensure that they have operated properly and have not prejudiced any member of the armed forces?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his measured and thoughtful observations. On his final point, I made it clear that the services' policy of not tolerating discrimination and harassment will apply to those who are affected by my statement.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I think that I am the Member of this House who has the most recent service in the regular armed forces. I do not presume to speak for members of the armed forces because that would be wrong, but I have some understanding of how they feel. The Secretary of State should understand that the vast majority are not homophobic—a dreadful word—and know that there have always been homosexuals in the armed forces, many of whom have served with great distinction.
Does the Secretary of State understand, however, that when members of the armed forces hear of this decision they will, for very good reasons, feel betrayed? They will think that political correctness has triumphed over operational effectiveness and the defence of the realm. Furthermore, they will believe that the Government are undermining our distinguished armed forces so that they will no longer have the respect that they have had up to now. I have a supplementary question on a point that may further undermine the armed forces. Will gay partners be allowed to share married quarters?

Mr. Hoon: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads his contribution, as he may in Hansard tomorrow, he will ask himself whether his first two sentences about the role and attitudes of the armed forces and the position of homosexuals in the past were wholly consistent with his next observation. There was a clear inconsistency in what he said.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to read my statement carefully because it is not in any way motivated by political correctness. It is motivated by a clear decision of the European Court of Human Rights, with which the Conservative party, in the unlikely event of its ever returning to power, would have to deal. That is the position that we have taken. We have dealt with the matter in co-operation with the service chiefs. He is right not to try and substitute his view of the services for those of the chiefs. They have accepted the need to implement the court's decision.
I make it clear that homosexual couples will not have lights or access to service quarters because they will not be married and will not therefore be treated any differently from other unmarried couples.

Dr. David Clark: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a sensible solution, which we all accept, to this tricky problem. I welcome the practical response from the Opposition Front Benchers.
In a modern society, it is important that we have armed forces that reflect that society. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to make the point that almost every other NATO nation operates a similar policy? Will he also pass on to the service chiefs the congratulations of Labour Members on the practical, common-sense way in which they have introduced a proposal that will solve the problem without in any way challenging the efficiency of our armed forces?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. On his observation about the practical response from Opposition Front Benchers, I cannot help but reflect that they may have to do a little more work on educating those who sit behind them, but they have made progress in recent days and no doubt that progress can continue.
Every time that an hon. Member has commented on the need for the armed forces to reflect society, it has caused certain Conservative Members apoplexy, not least the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. Regardless of any ideological debate about whether we should try to ensure that the armed forces reflect society, the forces recruit about 25,000—mostly young—people every year, so they inevitably reflect the society in which we live. There are different policies in different countries in NATO, but, as I said earlier, only one NATO country has a formal ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State ensure that, for the isolated people who may need advice, Rank Outsiders will be able to advertise its helpline number in armed forces journals, which it has so far been barred from doing?
The Secretary of State said that the change was being made because the law is the law. Could not he say that it is because human rights are human rights? He said that maintaining the ban was no longer legally sustainable. Does he agree that it is also not ethically or morally sustainable? Does he feel any remorse about, or can he offer any apology for, the careers that have been wrecked under his Government, as well as under previous ones? How many careers have been wrecked under the Labour Government? How much does he think that that will cost? Does he not think that the £10,000 rumoured as the compensation to be offered for the wrecking of careers and the most intrusive, rude and oppressive harassment is pathetic and inadequate?

Mr. Hoon: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this matter has been given very careful consideration; I am sorry that he has not given it quite the care and consideration that I might have hoped for. In the

briefing pack for commanding officers, there will be a number of details of further advice and information that can be given to service personnel who need it.
I made it clear that negotiations on compensation were still under way, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on amounts that have been agreed.
I should make it equally clear that, subject to obvious considerations of fitness, we shall look very sympathetically at applications from service personnel who wish to rejoin the services following discharge for homosexuality.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: While I am a strong supporter of the Secretary of State in this matter, precisely what were the "some concerns" to which he referred in his statement and from whom did they come?
Does the Secretary of State think that the shade of the grandfather of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) would approve of his grandson's comments? What would he think, for example, about the situation of the Chindits? Speaking as a relation of Orde Wingate and as one who knows something about the matter, it is an outrageous slur on the Chindits, the Eighth Army and other units to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the decision is totally unacceptable. Since there are very many Mid-Sussexes floating around, would it not be a good idea to bring to public notice the distinguished service rendered by homosexual personnel and the units in which they operated—frankly, under force majeure— during the war?
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) wants my support, but for once I strongly support his comments.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend intrigued the House by conjuring the vision of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex floating around. I have learned to my cost about debating history with my hon. Friend, so I shall not pursue him on that. However, I shall deal with the concerns that he mentioned.
I made it clear that we recruit about 25,000—mostly young—people to the armed forces each year. They reflect our society, which has a mixed view of homosexuality. It would be absurd for me to pretend otherwise. Those concerns are reflected in wider society, as they will be within the armed forces and will have to be addressed by commanding officers as they implement the code of conduct and this policy. If I pretended otherwise, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that I must pay more attention to who is occupying the Chair. Having carefully avoided all sorts of mistakes in the course of my observations, I apologise for not recognising you.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: A bet that I believe that I would win is that no member of the European Court of Human Rights has ever served in a crowded mess in a ship or in a cramped army bivouac. If any of them had done so, they would not have come to such a ludicrous decision, which will damage military effectiveness.
Does the Secretary of State understand that there is a great difference between those who hid their homosexuality and permitting homosexuality to be overt, which the decision will allow? Does he understand that


no matter what guidance he gives, overt homosexuals will be ostracised and threatened in ships and in barracks, for example? That will do profound damage to the armed forces.

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to substitute his own prejudices for, first of all— [Interruption.] If Conservative Members will allow me to finish, I shall explain why I think that the hon. Gentleman is dealing in prejudice. First, he is substituting his own view of the law for that of the European Court of Human Rights. It is not acceptable for hon. Members to say that decisions of the courts should be decided in a different way because the courts cannot possibly interpret the law properly.
We are dealing with the European Court of Human Rights, which has carefully considered the law and reached a conclusion. Right hon. and hon. Members know full well that it is necessary in a democratic society that upholds the rule of law to apply such decisions. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is substituting his view of military effectiveness for that of the service chiefs, who have accepted the code of conduct. They have recognised that they must implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and they are seeking to do so in a way that does not jeopardise military effectiveness in any way.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Secretary of State not understand that his appalling decision will be greeted with dismay, particularly by ordinary soldiers in Her Majesty's Forces, many of whom joined the services precisely because they wished to turn their back on some of the values of modern society?
How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that operational effectiveness will not be impaired when the Government argued before the European Court of Human Rights that
the presence of open or suspected homosexuals in the Armed Forces would have a substantial and negative effect on morale and consequently on the fighting power and operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces"?
How can he go back on what was the Government's line? Does he not understand the resentment that is felt by some of us in this country that the power to decide the composition of Her Majesty's armed forces has been usurped by a bunch of foreign judges in some continental city, when it should be decided by the people of this country and by this Parliament? Does he realise that he has created an enormous minefield, in which housing will be only one factor?

Mr. Hoon: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman is probably the authentic voice of the Conservative party today. I worry about its future if such prejudices are to be on display. I treat his observations as an attack not on the Government but on the Opposition Front-Bench team. Before he makes such intemperate comments, he should ask himself a basic question. In the unlikely event that he is part of a Government at some stage in the future, what decision would he take in the light of a European Court decision? If he cannot answer that question, he should not have said what he has just said in the most intemperate terms. He should think more carefully about the observations that he makes in the House, otherwise he

will condemn himself and his party to a lifetime of opposition. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with that.

Mr. John Burnett: I understand the Secretary of State's predicament, and I realise how difficult this problem is, but there are people who have served in the armed forces who have grave and serious reservations about this decision. Will he address one of the questions that he was asked earlier? I have not read the code of conduct—it has only just been published—but what will be the repercussions on individuals' rights to privacy?

Mr. Hoon: I have dealt with those reservations, so I shall not repeat myself. As for the individual, the essence of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights is to protect the privacy of individuals. I made it clear that, in devising the code of conduct, we had regard to the importance not only of military effectiveness and discipline, but the rights of the individual. Those two matters are complementary, and are set out in the code of conduct. That is why the service chiefs are willing to endorse this approach, and to lead the chain of command so as to ensure that the reservations to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which I accept, do not dominate the debate about the implementation of this policy.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Secretary of State answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), which was based on the example given by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, now the Secretary of State for Scotland, of the woman who felt that her privacy might be invaded in certain circumstances? Why have the Government concentrated their service test on conduct of the individual rather than operational situations? Should not they be giving advice and guidance on whether heterosexuals should be expected to share accommodation with homosexuals, and whether homosexuals should be deployed in the front line in intimate living conditions? Despite this rushed attempt to deal with this most delicate situation, does he agree that this is a much more difficult and complex subject than perhaps he had anticipated, and that this statement is only the beginning of his troubles, not the end of them?

Mr. Hoon: In referring at the outset to the views of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, I had in mind the hon. Gentleman's rather intemperate observations when the original decision was promulgated. He now seems to be rowing back from that and asking practical questions about the implementation of the policy.
I have been accused of delaying the implementation of the policy change, and now I am accused of rushing it. Somewhere in between, the Government may have got it just about right. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had time to study the document properly, but I have made it clear—and I repeat it—that at the heart of the code of conduct is an emphasis on operational effectiveness, and it clearly must also have regard to the privacy of individuals.
Operational effectiveness depends on a number of individuals working effectively together. Given the emphasis in the court's decision on the importance of


privacy and the rights of the individual, it is right and appropriate to reconcile the importance of operational effectiveness with respect for the privacy of the individual. That is set out in the code of conduct, and it will be carried through in the operational guidance given to commanding officers. It will allow appropriate and proper decisions on the issue of accommodation that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Point of Order

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave notice to the Speaker of a point of order that I was asked to raise. I was fortunate to have the 1 pm to 1.30 pm slot in Westminster Hall for a debate on the situation in Serbia and Kosovo. When I went into that Chamber at 12.50 pm, it was stuffy, smelly and airless. It is no exaggeration to say—and others agreed with me—that it smelt like a rather full school pupils' changing room. There may be a ventilation problem, but my point is that it is no place for the House of Commons to conduct its official business.
I ask members of the Speaker's Office and the Office of the Serjeant at Arms to go and not just see but smell for themselves. I am not casting aspersions on the school parties that were present; my point concerns the nature of what we have set up in that place. It is totally unsuitable for prolonged parliamentary activity, at least while it remains as airless as it is now. Could the House authorities examine the matter?

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, was in Westminster Hall today. I must admit that I did not smell anything, but perhaps I had left when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) arrived.
The hon. Gentleman asked you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make representations to Madam Speaker. Two debates took place in Westminster Hall this morning. One concerned post offices, and a good many people were interested and wanted to sit in the Public Gallery; the other dealt with petrol retailing, and a large number of petrol retailers had come to listen. In fact, the public area was not sufficient for the number of people who turned up. Only a few could go in at a time, for half an hour at a time, so no one had a chance to hear the whole debate. Perhaps that too could be mentioned in your representations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I suggest that concerns about ventilation and housekeeping should be directed to the Serjeant at Arms. Hon. Members with concerns about management and arrangements generally in the new Chamber should contact the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee.

Medicinal Product Testing in Children

Mr. Andrew Love: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the clinical testing and licensing of new medicinal products that are to be used for the treatment of children.
The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the licensing system relating to medicines that are likely to be prescribed for children, in response to growing concern about the widespread use in that context of off-label and unlicensed treatments. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that drugs routinely given to children are either not licensed for that purpose, or off-label: that is, they are prescribed in a way that is not in accordance with the instructions on the label regarding age, indication, dose or route of administration. It is no fault of the clinicians; rather, it is a direct result of deficiencies in the licensing system as it stands.
United Kingdom research published in the British Medical Journal in 1998 found that 25 per cent. of drugs were either off-label or not licensed for that purpose, although one in three children in hospital received drugs in that way. For babies admitted as patients, the figures are even higher: 65 per cent. of off-label or unlicensed treatments were given to nine out of every 10 infant patients, many of whom had been born prematurely.
The Government have acknowledged that the issue needs to be addressed. Indeed, the last Government played a leading role in the drafting of existing European guidance, which came into force in September 1997. The opening lines state:
Children should not be given medicines which have not been adequately evaluated for use in that age group. There is a responsibility, shared by applicants and the competent authorities, to ensure that children have timely access to safe and effective medicines which have accurate, scientifically justified prescribing information.
Guidance, however, cannot ensure that medicines will be adequately evaluated, or that prescribing information will be made available to clinicians. Indeed, no one monitors whether the guidance is being followed.
A Europe-wide study published in this week's British Medical Journal shows the scale of the problem. Sixty-seven per cent. of children who were admitted to hospital in five different European countries over four weeks received unlicensed or off-label treatments. Nearly half the prescriptions were either unlicensed or off-label. Surprisingly, in the main those were routine treatments, prescribed extensively to children.
My Bill would begin to deal with that problem by establishing a proper licensing system for new medicines that are to be used for children. Britain should take a lead by placing a statutory duty on the pharmaceutical industry to supply paediatric data on new products when their use on children is likely.
I must acknowledge the cost implications of the extended testing that would have to be carried out to improve the information available to doctors when prescribing specifically for children. To ensure compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of my Bill, some incentive should be considered that would recognise the additional costs that will inevitably be borne, thereby guaranteeing accurate and timely paediatric data.
Since April last year, a reformed system has been operating in the United States. Although it is still relatively early days, indications are that the United States pharmaceutical industry is rising to the challenges and providing adequately evaluated medicine for children in particular age groups.
I stress that the Bill would not deprive children of beneficial off-label and unlicensed treatments. It would simply regulate and evaluate new products coming on to the market to improve the paediatric information that is available to doctors when they prescribe drugs to children. As product licences are reviewed every five years, potentially the new system could be extended to drugs that are already on the market.
Worryingly, as drugs are prescribed in an unlicensed or off-label fashion, no formal mechanism has been established for notifying, collating or processing adverse drug reactions. Indeed, doctors are unlikely to report adverse reactions because they feel vulnerable, having prescribed a drug that is off-label or unlicensed. We do not know the extent or impact of adverse reactions.
Many people will be alarmed at the thought of testing medicines on children, but that, in effect, is what is happening every day in the health service. Under the present system, all children are potential guinea pigs when they enter hospital or see their general practitioner, yet neither children nor parents are aware of it. It is a hit-and-miss and, sometimes, hazardous system. Seriously ill children may be receiving inadequate doses of life-saving drugs, while others may be receiving worryingly high and potentially harmful doses of inappropriate treatments.
It is recognised that children's bodies absorb and process drugs differently from adults. Dosages cannot be based simply on a child's size, weight, body surface area or age. That is why specific, rigorous studies are important. With a closely monitored clinical study, properly designed and structured, as recommended by the existing European guidance, any adverse reactions and failure to respond to treatment would be speedily picked up and dealt with.
I stress that only children who would directly benefit from the drug—those already ill or being treated—would be involved in the testing. In addition, with modern non-invasive techniques, it would be possible to carry out trials with minimum discomfort to children. Of course, every study would have to have the full consent of parents and, where appropriate, of the child, too.
Proper medical trials would make the system far safer than at present, where drugs are prescribed with inadequate information. Currently, doctors are left to sink or to swim with their limited clinical knowledge and judgment. That is particularly the case for GPs or junior doctors who are not specialists in paediatric medicine, but are expected to take responsibility for prescribing to children. They should have the benefit of rigorous testing, carried out by acknowledged experts, to ensure that their prescribing is soundly based. Under the Bill, existing European guidance on the conduct of drug trials would be rigorously and ethically applied.
The Bill calls for children to be treated in exactly the same way as adults. In one important respect, children are no different from adults: they are individuals entitled to the best medical treatment available. Under the current system, they are effectively disfranchised. Ironically,


the Medicines Act 1968, which introduced the current licensing system, was a direct result of the thalidomide tragedy—a drug that directly affected children. My Bill would be an important step towards dealing with the deficiencies in the current Act that are already widely acknowledged by everyone involved in prescribing medicines to children.
I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the Bill today, as it coincides with the re-opening of the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry. The inquiry will be focusing on making recommendations that could help secure high-quality care across the national health service, and licensing medicines specifically for children is particularly pertinent to achieving that goal.
My Bill has the support of the Consumers Association, the Royal College of Nursing and academic medical opinion. I am pleased to say that it also has cross-party support, which demonstrates that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the need for change. Such change would significantly improve the licensing system for children's medicines and potentially benefit a very large number of children in the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Love, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. John Austin, Audrey Wise, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Dr. Vincent Cable and Mr. David Amess.

Medicinal Product Testing in Children

Mr. Andrew Love accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the clinical testing and licensing of new medicinal products that are to be used for the treatment of children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 45].

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

2nd Allotted Day

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 December].

[Mr. Michael Lord in the Chair]

Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. There has been some suggestion that the Bill's Report stage may be scheduled for debate in the House as early as next Monday. Although Opposition Members should have no objection if that is so, the Committee would be helped if—at some point, not necessarily now— guidance could be provided on the tabling of further amendments that right. hon. and hon. Members may wish to make to the Bill and on the starring of those amendments.
As the Committee is expected to finish considering the Bill by 7 o'clock tomorrow, and the House will not be sitting on Friday, I am sure that you will appreciate the point, Mr. Lord. The Opposition do not object to scheduling Report stage for Monday, but some guidance on tabling amendments would be very helpful.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. I should like to make a slightly more hardline point than that made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). We believe that it would be preferable to follow the usual rule—allowing a weekend, or several days, between the end of a Committee's consideration of a Bill and the beginning of Report—not least because there will be colleagues who, for whatever reason, may have assumed that Report would be held at a later date and require time at least to read Hansard and decide what amendments to table.
The normal courtesies—if they are to be followed by Madam Speaker and you, Mr. Lord—preclude moving to a subsequent stage in less than 48 hours. If possible, we should have an indication. Will you, Mr. Lord, confirm at an appropriate time that the normal rule would be that, between the end of the Committee and the beginning of Report, there would be time for hon. Members to read Hansard and to table amendments, with a day in between the tabling and the debate to ensure that everybody had due notice of further stages of the Bill?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I was not aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I imagine that they will be dealt with in the usual way during the business statement tomorrow, or, if not, through the usual channels.

Clause 1

NEW SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION.

Amendment moved [15 December]: No. 1, in page 2, line 44, leave out from "elector" to end of line 2 on page 3.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 2, in clause 8, page 10, line 11, leave out ", 2".
Amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 14, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 15.
Amendment No. 4, in schedule 1, page 19, line 28, leave out from "declarations" to end of line 29.
Amendment No. 5, in page 26, leave out lines 28 to 31.
Amendment No. 47, in schedule 2, page 27, line 33, leave out "20" and insert "5".
Amendment No. 48, in page 27, line 33, leave out "20" and insert "10".
Amendment No. 49, in page 27, line 42, leave out "20" and insert "5".
Amendment No. 50, in page 27, line 42, leave out '20' and insert "10".
Amendment No. 82, in page 28, line 2, at end insert—
(4A) The third set of conditions is that—

(a) he was included in a register of parliamentary electors in respect of an address at a place that is situated within the constituency concerned,
(b) that entry in the register was made on the basis that he was resident, or to be treated for the purposes of registration as resident, at that address, and
(c) he either, prior to ceasing to be a resident of the United Kingdom, signed a declaration stating an intention to return to the United Kingdom to live within ten years of departure, or, alternatively, he continues to pay income tax annually in the United Kingdom.".

Amendment No. 51, in page 30, line 23, leave out "20" and insert "5".
Amendment No. 52, in page 30, line 23, leave out "20" and insert "10".
Amendment No. 53, in page 30, line 32, leave out "20" and insert "5".
Amendment No. 54, in page 30, line 32, leave out "20" and insert "10".
Schedule 2 stand part.
Amendment No. 7, in schedule 4, page 34, leave out lines 52 and 53.
Amendment No. 8, in page 35, line 19, leave out from "connection" to end of line 20.
New clause 1—British citizens overseas—
.—(1) Sections 1 to 4 and subsections (1) and (2) of section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1989, are hereby repealed.
(2) In section 3C of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (as inserted by the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999), in subsection (2), paragraph (b) and the word 'or' at the end of paragraph (a) shall be omitted.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: When my speech was interrupted on 15 December, I was about to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). There has been a more prolonged intervention in my speech—namely the entire Second Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which the House had on Monday. In that debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an announcement about the content of clause 130 of the Bill, which deals with the subject of this amendment and the others being taken with it. I found both clause 130 and what my right hon. Friend had to say profoundly unsatisfactory. I very much hope that what he said is not the last word. I will come to that in a moment.
I would like to resume the argument that I was putting to the House when the debate was adjourned just under four weeks ago. When we talk about the overseas vote, Opposition Members seem to indicate that my amendment would remove some major right. In fact, this fancy franchise is a flop. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has fantasised in this House about possibly 3 million overseas voters being removed if my amendment were accepted.
When the Conservative Government introduced the overseas vote, they did so unilaterally and not as a matter of consensus, as the present Government are seeking with this Bill. They introduced the measure against my opposition, as shadow Home Secretary, and that of the party which I represented.

Mr. Greenway: The intervening period has allowed us the opportunity for further research. When I seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Lord, I will give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the consistency that he has shown. However, he cannot say that there was no consensus on that matter. In its report in the 1982–83 Session, the Select Committee on Home Affairs unanimously supported a recommendation that all UK citizens registered in EEC countries should be permitted to vote in British parliamentary elections. The thoroughness of the report indicated that there was cross-party consensus for there to be overseas electors, and the subsequent legislation sought to implement that report.

Mr. Kaufman: That is not what emerged from the 1984 debates. The Home Affairs Committee in that Parliament took the view that there should not be an overseas vote, and did so unanimously. It is as simple as that.
Whether or not that is so, let us look at what the Conservative Government of the day envisaged might happen—and what might happen, let us be clear, on the basis of the seven-year period with which they started. They forecast that there would be 800 overseas votes per constituency in the seven years, representing half a million overseas voters. The latest figure—for last year— was 13,677: 21 per constituency. That is the extent of this huge, allegedly unalienable right, introduced in any case only 16 years ago, that the Conservative party persists in demanding.
The greatest number registered—I mean people registered to vote, not actual votes registered—throughout that period was 34,454 in 1991, which is 53 per constituency or 0.08 per cent. of the electorate. In 1990, the figure fell to 1,836—on the kindest possible calculation, that is 0.00 per cent. of the electorate—and that was after legislation extending the period to 20 years.
The amendment is not designed to stifle an insatiable demand for democracy among expatriates.

Mr. Graham Brady: The right hon. Gentleman has explained that few people want to take advantage of the right that they have, but does not the fact that those few people do take advantage of it suggest that they feel strongly that they want to participate in the national life of their mother country, and is not that a good argument for continuing with that right?

Mr. Kaufman: A more direct way of their participating in our national life would be for them to live here rather than trying to affect directly how the country is governed after 20 years abroad.
The hon. Gentleman has intervened at a felicitous moment, because I was coming to the effect that even that tiny number of people can have. I see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), whose return to the House we welcomed in 1997. He was defeated in the 1992 general election by 19 votes, after three counts; 65 overseas votes were registered; 38 were cast by proxy—the majority from South Africa—and the proxies were well-known local Conservative party activists. He was out of the House for five years, not because the people of Vale of Glamorgan did not want him as their Member of Parliament but because a small group of Conservatives in the constituency defeated him on behalf of people who would never have been represented by him one way or the other.

Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that I am the only Member of Parliament ever to have lost a seat in a general election when the majority of votes cast by constituents resident in the constituency supported that candidate. He may not be aware of the sense of outrage in the constituency after the 1992 result, which I believe was reflected in the 1997 election, at which I gained the largest majority ever seen in the seat.

Mr. Kaufman: That experience illustrates the illegitimacy of the fancy franchise introduced unilaterally by the Conservative party and multiplied by four in the periodicity deliberately to suit itself: not to enfranchise the electorate but to enhance its own electoral prospects, as can be seen by the incidence of application to be registered.
5.30 pm
It is not simply that the services of my hon. Friend were denied to the House for five years, but that—given a tiny quirk of the vote in other constituencies—the overseas vote could have affected the government of the country. In the 1992 election, the overall Conservative majority was only 21. Eleven seats the other way and the Conservative party would not have had a majority. It would have lost the election and probably been replaced by the Labour party, even though it did not have an overall majority.
The overseas vote can decide not only who wins or loses in an individual constituency, but who governs a country in which large numbers of people who apply for the vote have chosen not to live for a generation and in which their children may never have lived at all. Tax exiles can decide the Government who decide what the taxes are. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who was an Undersecretary at the Home Office when the second piece of legislation went through, admitted the position. He said that it might be true that the legislation would extend the franchise to a number of people who might be described as tax dodgers and thus were perhaps unworthy. Of course, the Conservative party may draw its most devoted support from that sort of person.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Before we leave the subject of the Vale of Glamorgan example, can the right

hon. Gentleman tell us whether the overseas voters in that constituency in the 1992 general election had never had a connection with the constituency? Is that also part of his case, or had they had a connection but left to live overseas? There is a huge difference between the allegation that votes were cast in Vale of Glamorgan on behalf of people who had no link with the area and the allegation that the right to vote was exercised, under the rules of the time, by people who lived abroad but had a secure link to the area.

Mr. Kaufman: I do not accept the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw. He may regard my view as banal and elementary, but I believe that if one wants to decide the Government of a country, one should at least have the courtesy to live there. The hon. Gentleman earlier raised the case of his brother. Although I know that the Liberal Democrat party has a different policy for every street, having a different policy for every brother would be taking things too far.

Mr. John Bercow: I am especially interested in this point because two relatives of mine live in Palma, although as far as I am aware they do not live there because I live here. They have both contributed substantially to this country over a long time and have paid, and continue to pay, taxes in this country. They are not worthy objects of the right hon. Gentleman's waspish denigration. Why should not they have an opportunity to contribute to the democratic process in this country when they have contributed substantially to its fortunes?

Mr. Kaufman: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman's relatives wished to get away from him they would have moved further than the Balearic islands, and perhaps they should consider that in their future residential dispositions.
The vote in this country is based on residential qualification. People who live abroad and have some sentimental or fiscal connection with this country are not in the same position as those who live here and are subject to the decisions of Parliament and the Government.
My approach to the matter is extremely simplistic, which makes me impervious to interventions such as that from the hon. Gentleman. If I were to approach the matter on an "if and but" basis, I would be vulnerable, but the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out that my position on the matter has been consistent for 16 years. I intend to maintain that position until my colleagues on the Front Bench—so brilliant in so many other ways—learn the appropriate lesson on this issue.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as, before he came into the Chamber, I was pointing out that he sought to intervene when I was speaking four weeks ago.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is right to say that I tried to intervene on him in the previous century. However, he cannot have it both ways. He said that, given the small numbers involved, he was not trying to make a party political point,


but then he gave the example of the 1992 election result in the Vale of Glamorgan constituency, which he clearly considers to be a party political matter.
How does the right hon. Gentleman know the outcome of that election? It was a secret ballot. How does he know that the overseas voters in the Vale of Glamorgan election all voted Conservative? After all, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), was born in South Africa and lived there for a long time. He used to be so left wing that it is doubtful that he would have been able to get into the new Labour party. However, he certainly is not, and has never been, a Conservative. Is the right hon. Gentleman making an uncharacteristically spiteful political point, or not?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I urge hon. Members who intervene to do so briefly and succinctly, so as to ensure an orderly debate.

Mr. Kaufman: I am interested that the hon. Member for Lichfield assumes that, if a point is political, it must be spiteful. As far as I am concerned, I am making a party political point. I often make such points, and have spent a lifetime doing so. The case that I am arguing has natural justice on its side, but I am also putting it forward on behalf of the Labour party. I was elected by my constituents to act on behalf of the Labour party, and I shall continue to do so.
When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced the Bill on Monday, he said that he was going to reduce the period of the overseas vote from 20 years to 10 years. He then said that the Select Committee on Home Affairs had recommended a reduction to five years. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows the amity that I bear for the Government—if amity can be regarded as a synonym for grovelling sycophancy. However, as Chairman of a different Select Committee, I sometimes wonder what the point of Select Committees is if Governments are able to ignore their recommendations.
The previous Government ignored the recommendation of a Select Committee and introduced the overseas vote. This Government saw what a Select Committee of this House, in this Parliament, said on the matter, and decided to ignore it. I do not see the point of Select Committees doing all the work that they do if Governments then brush their conclusions aside.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
We should be clear that we are considering a franchise which the previous Conservative Government introduced, despite strong opposition from Labour. The period initially proposed was seven years; under pressure, the then Government proposed to reduce that period to five years. Now my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes that he is doing justice to the issue by reducing the period to double what the Conservative party originally regarded as acceptable. That simply is not satisfactory. Ten years is far too long—there could be three general elections during that period.
Is clause 130 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill set in stone, or will the Government consider amendments to it on their merits? If so, I shall seek to table an amendment to that Bill comparable to the one before us. Are the Government at least ready to consider the five-year period recommended by the Select Committee and originally introduced by the Conservative Government 15 years ago? I would like to be able to work with the Government on this issue, but one needs a certain amount of flexibility if their most loyal supporters are not to become—on one issue, at any rate—a little disenchanted with them.
I hope that the Minister will respond in a way that will allow me to withdraw the amendment and seek to table another one to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Before I sit down, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), as I said I would. One must be courteous to one's colleagues.

Mr. Linton: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree that there is no harm in being accused of making party political points. After all, we are elected to this place as members of political parties. However, I remind the House that the Home Affairs Committee report had unanimous support from members of all three parties in recommending a reduction from 20 years to five. That policy was overturned by the Opposition only when they realised that the implication of that would be to deprive them of the monthly cheque for £83,000 from Mr. Michael Ashcroft. That is a clear case of changing policy for cash.

Mr. Kaufman: The best way to deal with what one might call the Ashcroft issue would be to abolish the overseas vote. The problem would be solved just like that. However, I accept what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Fabricant: As I said earlier, the right hon. Gentleman has taken an uncharacteristically partisan approach. He said in the last century that he has been consistent—

Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman please stop talking about the last century? We are in the 20th century until midnight on 31 December this year. Let us at least get that right.

Mr. Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. In fact, the former Dean of Lichfield, the Very Reverend Dr. Tom Wright, who has now moved to Westminster abbey, pointed this out to me. I had avoided the great cliche of saying the last millennium, but I can certainly refer to the last year.

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fabricant: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend, whom I know to be an expert on dates, among so many other things.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will recall that the right hon. Gentleman said only a few moments ago that he had displayed either grovelling sycophancy towards the Government or, at any rate, a suitable synonym for such


grovelling sycophancy. Has he not just demonstrated, by his very sound attitude to the advent of the millennium next year, that he has done no such thing?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Interventions must be relevant, and must relate to the matter that we are debating. They should not be about whether we are or are not in the new millennium.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Winterton.
Last year, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he had been consistent on this matter. He said, in fact, that he had said as early as 27 June 1984 that people who live overseas should not have the right to vote. However, his consistency does not necessarily mean that he is right. In fact, for once, the right hon. Gentleman may be desperately wrong. Those who live abroad—whether or not they pay United Kingdom tax—have an interest in the country whose nationality they choose to keep. If one chooses to live abroad, one may seek to become a citizen of the country where one lives. That does not necessarily bring tax disadvantages—it may bring an advantage—but if someone chooses to remain a citizen of the UK, he or she has an inherent interest in how the country is governed.
People may also have a fiscal interest, no matter whether they pay taxes in the UK. The rules of double taxation mean that someone who does not pay tax in the UK will still pay tax elsewhere. The Government claim— not always correctly—that they levy low taxation, although it is rising. There may be no fiscal advantage to living overseas. One may still have a financial interest in the UK if one is not paying tax here. Many people own property, although, of course, they pay property taxes. Many people have friends and relatives who pay tax. Many people who live overseas have trusts in the UK for the benefit of relatives or others, and those would be subject to UK taxation and affected by the economy and welfare of the nation. The whole point of voting at a general election is to try to decide what is best for our nation on tax, welfare and the economy.
It is fundamentally wrong to argue that those who live overseas should not have the right to vote. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's protestations, I believe that the amendment is politically motivated, and that is quite wrong. Over the years, it has been felt in the House of Commons that issues such as voting rights—whether by first past the post or proportional representation, for example—should be proceeded with by means of consensus. It is for that reason that the Committee stage is being taken on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman's amendment is fundamentally wrong. We decide whether or not people should vote entirely according to their ability to make a choice. Voting is a function of age and ability. I believe

that it is still illegal for people living in mental institutions to vote. There may be changes in the law, and perhaps the Minister would clarify the point.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): indicated dissent.

Mr. Fabricant: They are not banned from voting?

Mr. O'Brien: indicated assent.

Mr. Fabricant: In the past, there was a principle that those who had been committed could not vote.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I seek elucidation. Is not new clause 1 discriminatory in the sense that, if I were rich and lived abroad but could afford a home in this country—or owned a house on which I paid rates—I should be entitled to vote? I should be on the electoral register, even though I did not have to pay taxes because I should be in the country for only 12 weeks in a year. Surely, the new clause discriminates in favour of the rich, who can afford to have a second home in Britain. The central point seems to be that of citizenship— perhaps my hon. Friend can help me in this matter.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The central point is not whether people are rich or poor, but the perception of whether they are likely to vote Labour or Conservative. My hon. Friend, whose constituency almost abuts my own, is right to state that the whole question is one of citizenship. As I pointed out in my preamble, people who are prepared to remain part of the United Kingdom by retaining British citizenship, despite the fact that to do so might disadvantage them fiscally when they are living abroad, are proving their interest in the welfare of the UK. Is that not right? Surely, if one is a citizen of a democracy, one's most fundamental right is the right to vote.
It is all very well for Labour Members to say from time to time, "No representation without taxation"—a strange reversal of the war cry of the Americans when they sought independence—but that is not the case. Many poor people, who do not pay tax, voted Labour—quite rightly so. Sadly, after two and a half years, more poor people pay tax than was the case before the Government came to power. However, the Labour party does not claim that because people do not pay tax, they should not be allowed to vote. That would be a return to the 19th century.

Mr. Bercow: I do not think that my hon. Friend has entirely done justice to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Does he agree that this matter is extremely significant for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? It would be a damning indictment of his amendment if its effect—deliberate or inadvertent—were to protect people living abroad who own property in this country, at the expense of people living abroad who do not.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; the measure is discriminatory. We should discriminate on one factor and on one factor only: United Kingdom citizenship. If people choose to remain citizens of the UK,


whether that advantages or disadvantages them fiscally is irrelevant. If they remain members of the UK, there should be no discrimination against them; they should be allowed to vote.

Mr. Linton: The hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) are both right. In fact, they are both wrong. It is not enough to spend the night of 10 October in some residence in Britain in order to qualify for a vote; the qualification depends on where one is resident on that date. To be resident—whether for electoral or income tax purposes—one has normally to reside at a place. People who are normally resident overseas would not qualify for a vote in the UK, even if they owned a house in this country and spent the night of 10 October there. That has not been tested in the courts, but it is the understanding of electoral registration officers.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right. Technically, one has to be resident. After all, many Members of Parliament own more than one home, especially if their constituency is beyond commuting distance from Westminster. Technically, people have to be resident not only on the day, but on that very evening. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point. However, we all know that, in practice, that is not the interpretation. Hon. Members or electors may not be at home on that night, so they may not be technically resident. In that case, the electoral returning officer might say, "Perhaps they are away on business or on holiday." The form is not filled in with the idea that one has to be present on that night.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The point under discussion would have been clarified to some extent if my amendment to prevent double registration had been accepted. That would have made it clear that one is supposed to register where one is fully resident. It would have avoided having people flitting about—as MPs do— and being registered in different places. That was a worthwhile amendment; it would have helped to clarify new clause 1, which I hope to defend later.

Mr. Fabricant: I am not sure whether I shall vote with the hon. Gentleman—I shall listen to the arguments—but I have some sympathy with what he said last year. If the Government are to introduce, in due course, a national register of electors, that would be an especially effective way of ensuring that people do not vote twice in two constituencies for the same assembly—whether that be Parliament or one of the regional assemblies that I so abhor.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again, but his speech is so interesting that it provokes interventions. As the law stands, and given the failure of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), is not the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) factually wrong? At present, it is perfectly legitimate for people to be on the electoral register at two addresses, so long as they vote only in respect of one of them.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I pointed out that if the amendment tabled by the

hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire had been accepted, it would have prevented someone from voting twice in two constituencies for one assembly. Perhaps we could have some clarification from Ministers of whether it is still legal for someone, such as a student, to vote twice for two different assemblies—that is, to vote at home with a postal vote for a local council and, in the same election, to vote for a different council in the university town in which he is living—I see that the Minister agrees. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would have ensured that there could not be multiple voting for the same assembly.

Mr. Linton: Just to ensure that the House does not suffer under a misapprehension, the definition of residence is not residing in a place for one night. According to the Inland Revenue, it is somewhere between residing there for more than half the year, which will guarantee that one is qualified for residence, and for a period from a quarter to one half of the year, which will entitle one to residence. That is why people can be resident in two places. That is why they can be resident overseas even though they spend a quarter of the year in this country. In an application for electoral registration, people can have dual registration—a practice to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I would like to see an end—but one cannot be resident overseas and have a vote in this country.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I make another plea to the Committee for brief interventions, so that we can make progress.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is right in the point that he makes about the Inland Revenue. That applies to the rules whether one is paying UK taxes, or paying only overseas taxes under a double taxation agreement. However, he is not correct in saying that just because that is the Inland Revenue's interpretation under finance legislation, it has any implication for residency rights under Representation of the People Acts. As I understand the matter—again I seek clarification from the Under-Secretary of State whose constituency almost abuts my own—it is the evening of 10 October that determines whether one is resident.
The measure is blatantly unfair. I have friends who have worked overseas for UK companies, in unpleasant climates and in unpleasant countries—I shall not say where—but who are very active in politics. Furthermore, the assumption that such people are always Conservative is patently wrong. I gave the example of the Minister who lived in South Africa, where he was brought up. He had an overseas vote and obviously voted Labour, or, in his case—for all I know—communist.

6 pm

Mr. Bercow: I think he was a Liberal.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend tells me that the hon. Gentleman is a former Liberal.
I have a friend from university who worked for Unilever and worked overseas, His father was general secretary of the north-east region of the Communist party. My friend used his postal vote. He told me that as there


were no communists in the constituency in which he wanted to vote, he was forced to vote right wing, as he put it—he had to vote Labour. Therefore, the assumption that all overseas voters are Conservative is patent nonsense.
Nevertheless, the amendment is blatantly unfair. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, the whole test is that of citizenship. I firmly maintain that if one chooses—one does have choice in the matter—to remain a citizen of the United Kingdom, one has an interest in the United Kingdom. If one has an interest in the United Kingdom, one of the oldest democracies, with the second oldest Parliament— the oldest being the Althing in Iceland, which I have had the privilege of visiting several times—one has the right to vote, and that right should not be taken away.
The right hon. Member for Gorton says that it is wrong for Governments to ignore Select Committee reports. Unfortunately, Governments do. Some Select Committees are more listened to than others. A recent report by The Guardian gave marks according to the publicity that various Select Committees get, and it was interesting to note that every Select Committee got either nul points or one star, and only one Select Committee got four stars. That was, surprisingly, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I suspect that both Conservative and Labour Governments listen to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee because it has the oxygen of publicity. The point that I wish to make, without going off the point, is that the Select Committees that seek obscurity sometimes deserve to be ignored by Governments.
I shall not try your patience any more, Mr. Winterton. Citizenship is the issue. If people choose to retain United Kingdom citizenship, they choose to belong to a mature democracy. A mature democracy offers its citizens voting rights, and those voting rights should not be taken away.

Mr. Barnes: I shall speak to the amendments that stand in my name, but first and foremost I want to support new clause 1 and the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and to reinforce his opposition to schedule 2 standing part of the Bill. In fact, my amendments are merely fall-back provisions in case my right hon. Friend's attempts to abolish overseas electoral registration should fail. My fall-back provisions are to some extent pre-empted by clause 130 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, but they have been tabled in this Committee as fall-back measures and allow us to discuss the principles that they involve.
My name appears on the amendment paper in support of every one of my right hon. Friend's amendments. They show the clear, principled position to which we should adhere. I believe that people who move overseas become part of a fresh society, in the sense that they are subject to the laws and provisions of that society and will be linked with it by their family relationships. Their children are growing up in that society. Therefore the major things that happen to them depend on what is happening in that society—not on a few decisions on taxation taken in this country.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: That simply cannot be right, can it? It is the central feature of

citizenship that one owes rights and obligations to the state in return for protection. If a person goes to live abroad and is arrested, that person continues to look to the British consular service for protection until he has taken the citizenship of another country. Surely that in itself is a justification for being allowed to keep the right to vote, and to influence elections, in the country whose citizenship one claims.

Mr. Barnes: That is not such a powerful argument. It is an argument about the nature of citizenship, links with this country and the services that a citizen expects, but why should a citizen who lives elsewhere expect the right to vote in his country of citizenship? Masses of other matters affecting a person's life are determined by the country in which he lives. Ideally, that is where the vote should be exercised while they are resident.
Hon. Members may remember that I introduced an amendment earlier to say that the names of overseas residents in this country, in addition to those from the Republic of Ireland and from the Commonwealth, should be on registers in this country. I believe that that applies to about 680,000 people. Therefore, the principle for which I am arguing is consistent with my earlier arguments. The argument that people should vote where their links and connections are is overwhelming. It overrides the arguments about citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in a metaphysical sense as though it were the only thing that mattered in every set of circumstances and overrode every other consideration.
Under the rolling register proposed in the Bill, United Kingdom citizens who go overseas can immediately re-register once they re-enter the United Kingdom for residential purposes. If a citizen feels that he very much belongs to the United Kingdom, and is drawn to the United Kingdom at every opportunity but his work sometimes takes him elsewhere, that presents no problems. When he is in the UK, he can re-qualify again in order to register; the Bill allows that to be done very quickly.
We should not mix compulsory registration with a system of voluntary registration. Compulsory registration is democratically superior to voluntary registration. We should expect everyone in a society to be obliged to appear on an electoral register. It should then be their decision whether to exercise their franchise, but we should ensure that no one who is part of a society misses out.
Voluntary registers are obnoxious, because if we operated voluntary registers in this country, some groups would be included in the registers and others would be excluded. We would by no means have full democratic arrangements. Voluntary electoral arrangements overseas have the same failing. There is no mechanism by which we can oblige everyone who is overseas to register, and it is sensible not to mix up these two arrangements but to stick with the stronger principle—compulsory registration.
Compulsory registration ensures that those who are rootless, poor and alienated are incorporated into electoral systems. Voluntary registration would exclude them. If we operated such a system, it would be like the system that exists in America where there has been a massive lack of registration. The principle of compulsory registration rules out the arrangements for overseas registration.
In 1984–85—when, finally, a period of five years was established—my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton vigorously fought against the establishment of overseas registration rights. In 1989, that period was extended to 20 years. I had entered the House by then, and was one of a small group of Labour MPs who, at every conceivable opportunity, opposed the measure to try to extend the period, first to 25 years and then to 20 years. In 1989, I studied the speeches that my right hon. Friend had made in 1984–85—speeches from which he has quoted—and was glad to see that the Labour party had put up a vigorous battle in the House of Commons on these matters. I was only sorry that that did not occur on the later occasion, because there was at least an opportunity to say, "We shall go no further than the five-year provision."
The Labour rebels who attempted to hold the line at five years were consistent in their voting. There were six Divisions against the measure, including in Committee, on Second and Third Readings and on the money resolution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the people who were the most involved in rebelling on those matters were all members of the socialist Campaign group. They voted four, five or six times against the measure. In fact, the only people who voted against it on six occasions were myself and Dave Nellist. People in the Labour party with democratic socialist principles that they extended to electoral arrangements were concerned by what was happening then. However, it might seem a strange alliance for someone from the socialist Campaign group to tuck in behind the amendments that were so vigorously moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton.

Mr. Kaufman: As my hon. Friend will know, I was at that time a member of the shadow Cabinet and, therefore, bound by collective responsibility. Had I not been, he would have had my company in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Barnes: I believe that that is the position that my right hon. Friend would have taken. I know that he was quite upset at the deal that Labour shadow Home Office representatives were engaged in. A low-level deal was reached to extend the provisions for postal and proxy votes and to increase the amount that could be spent on by-elections by allowing the Conservatives to increase the time that one could be out of the country for up to 20 years. That was entirely unacceptable.

Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, but I am anxious about his call for compulsory registration. What would he say to someone who felt at risk of violence and chose, however unfortunate it might be, to come off the register?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is not in order as it does not relate to the amendment. Unless he can prove that it does, I trust that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will continue his speech.

Mr. Barnes: May I just say briefly that we have compulsory electoral registration in this country? That is

the basis of our system. If Members do not agree with that system, they should table amendments to the Bill and use the other procedures of the House to change it.

Mr. Shepherd: In what way do we have compulsory registration in this country? My local authority makes inquiries and prints the register out on a pretty rote basis. However, there is no compulsion to register.

Mr. Barnes: If someone fails to register, he can technically be fined £1,000 for failing to fill in a registration form. Millions of people are missing from the electoral register, so it is obvious that this aspect of the law does not work all that effectively. I am not in favour of bearing down heavily on those who are not on the register. I support the Bill, which is trying to get the people who are missing from the register back on it.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Bearing in mind the number of amendments that have been selected for debate, it is important that we have an orderly discussion. Will the hon. Gentleman please return to consideration of the amendment?

Mr. Barnes: I will now consider the amendments tabled in my name. So far, I have spoken to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, but to which my name has been attached.
6.15 pm
My amendments would restrict the period of the operation of the overseas vote to five or 10 years. The Select Committee on Home Affairs suggested that the period should be five years, and 10 years is the proposal which the Government have made in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. That proposal has been supported by the Liberal Democrats. However, I have also attached my name to amendment No. 82, which the Liberal Democrats' tabled and which would not allow someone who is not initially registered in this country to be registered overseas. At present, a babe in arms can be taken overseas and is able to vote in this country on his or her 18th birthday. The Liberal Democrat amendment would not permit that. Furthermore, a declaration should be signed by a person overseas to say that he or she intends to return to this country at the end of the 10-year period.
I have adopted the Liberal Democrats' proposals, in connection with the five-year provision, in amendment No. 119. It is a starred amendment, because I tabled it only yesterday. However, I want the principle in the Liberal Democrats' amendment to operate in connection with the five-year as well as the 10-year arrangement. I am a bit disappointed that the Government have chosen a separate Bill to deal with that item. It is perverse that we should discuss overseas votes and the period of time in which one can have an overseas vote under this Bill when the decision will be made in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which has the objective of amending this Bill. The House has yet to decide whether it will pass this Bill.
I hope that the Government will respond to my right hon. Friend's case and will end such undemocratic and unacceptable arrangements. If not, I hope that we shall provide for a shorter period for registration overseas that


will contain the necessary checks. That will act as a staging post in clearing the matter up until my right hon. Friend's views win the day.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred to amendment No. 82, which was tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. However, it is not the lead amendment, which we began to debate last month and last year, if not to say in the previous century or millennium. It would not result in a trivia quiz question if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were involved, but he has probably made the longest interrupted speech that Parliament has heard for a long time. It began a month ago today and only finished this afternoon. I understand his position, but I disagree with it and take a different view.
When I intervened earlier, I was not special pleading on behalf of my older brother who was abroad but who has now returned to the United Kingdom. I used that case as an example of someone who had lived in the UK for a considerable part of his adult life and who had been sent by his employer to work abroad. He had no choice in the sense that that was there the job was; he could not go anywhere else. When the job finished, he returned. He never changed his intention to come back, but the question of how long he was outside this country was not in his hands. He happened to be in a Commonwealth country—Cyprus—but his case is replicated throughout the country. Anyone on any pay grade in any constituency could find himself in that position.
My hon. Friends and I reflected on what is not a theological position; there is no absolute view of what is right or wrong. Each country legislates appropriately. Commonality of legislation is an issue when it comes to voting for the European Parliament. If there is one set of rules in one country and another set in another, one begins to have a varied process for choosing representatives. However, let us put that issue aside for a moment. We are concentrating on elections in the UK and we are free to choose our own rules.
The right hon. Member for Gorton reminded us that we went from no overseas voting to it being allowed in a period of five or 10 years. A period of five years was decided on, but that suddenly shot up under the Conservative Government to 20 years. In the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, the Second Reading of which we debated on Monday, the Government now suggest that the period should be 10 years. I want to explore two or three issues in relation to that and urge the Minister to reflect that the distance between the Government's current position and ours is very small. If it is appropriate, I am happy for the matter to be considered under the other Bill and I hope that we can reach maximum consensus.
I intervened earlier on the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the history of this issue. I refer to the relevant and interesting example of Vale of Glamorgan, where the right hon. Gentleman's colleague was clearly turfed out by people who were not in the constituency at the time of the election. There is no suggestion that those people did not have a connection with the constituency. They voted by proxy and the evidence showed that many of them had declared themselves to be Conservatives, and clearly the

majority determined the result. However, it appeared that they fell within the rules because they had a link with the constituency and were calling on someone local to act for them.
That is not nearly as awful as people looking at a map of the United Kingdom, choosing Vale of Glamorgan because it is a very marginal seat, and saying that they would exercise their franchise there, even though they had never had a link with the constituency. We must have a system in which people cannot pervert the normal process by choosing where they place their vote because that right is not open to everybody else. People who have one home or who qualify to vote on the basis of one home do not have freedom to choose where they vote, and no one else should have that freedom either.
Those who are abroad must have their vote in the place where they last had a link—this is where the argument about young people applies—otherwise there will be abuse of the system and the people who are resident in this country all the time feel that they are not equally valued.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, but I want to keep my contribution brief.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that at the moment there is a mechanism whereby one does not have to have a local link? Surely the point is that to vote in a constituency one has to have a connection, and there is no way that someone could, as he said, scan the map to find a marginal constituency in which to vote.

Mr. Hughes: That point raises several issues. That should be the position, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the law is not entirely clear about that. Secondly, we are debating what the law should be, and I want us to make sure that at the end of this process we make the law as clear as possible.
Thirdly, if we are to be fair and have a system that does not allow arbitrary choice, we cannot have a rule that allows people living in Cyprus or India, for example, who have not lived in this country since birth, suddenly to come on to the register at age 18 and pronounce where they will have their vote. I am flagging up the need to end up with an Act that makes sure that that problem is solved.
It is perfectly proper to have a debate about whether the criterion for voting should be citizenship or residence at the time of the election. If, at the end of the day, we decide that someone who is abroad and can vote nowhere else has sufficient connection with this country to vote here, we need to define that connection. There are several ways of doing so. The first is that the person concerned is a UK citizen and that he keeps his vote here no matter whether he has a right to vote elsewhere.
The second definition is that the person has a residence here and is based here, even though he may not be here very often. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned, that means that the person has a choice. That criterion would be discriminatory on the basis of property and wealth and should be rejected.
The third way of defining a connection is to ensure that before they leave the country people make a statutory declaration that they are leaving for a limited period.


Although that is not a perfect system, the declaration could be taken into account in other matters such as tax. There is every difference between people who leave this country to live somewhere else and say for tax purposes that they are not a UK resident, and people who have lodged in a public place a declaration to return. That declaration clearly has tax implications, so it is likely that people would not make it without thinking seriously about it.
The fourth way is to introduce a mechanism by which people can attest to the impermanence of their move abroad.

Mr. Greenway: On the hon. Gentleman's point that people who choose not to pay tax in this country should not be allowed to vote, has he considered that many of them choose not to pay tax in this country under double taxation agreements because they have to pay tax in the country where they are working, often for a British company?

Mr. Hughes: I have considered that, and I have discussed the subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who is much more expert in these matters than me. We have never pulled together in UK law, certainly not in English law, the various entitlements that people can have. They are entitled to certain rights because of their citizenship here; they have other entitlements because of their domicile here—domicile is a complicated area of legal definition— and they are given other entitlements by virtue of their residence here, but if they are well advised and know their way around the system, it is still possible in law for them to play the field and vote in a certain place and be exempt from tax or have their tax liability reduced.
I do not expect a portmanteau answer from the Minister now, and I appreciate that the Bill is concerned with electoral reform, not taxation, but we should try to use the opportunity to make sure that we do not have additional criteria that further complicate the rights and entitlements of people who go abroad and return home. At the moment, the law is complicated in defining people's liabilities to the state and their rights. We should at least ensure that people's entitlement to vote and obligation to pay tax flow as similarly as possible from the status of their residence, and are not made too complicated.

Mr. Grieve: That is simply impossible. A French national living in the United Kingdom, paying UK tax, would have no entitlement to vote. Unless we depart from the basic principle and extend the vote to all residents by making residency, not nationality, the sole criterion, we will never get the clarity that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Hughes: Of course I understand that a French national living here may have taxation obligations here but not the right to vote, other than in European Union elections. I was simply saying that when we legislate to provide, in this Bill or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, a new definition of people's right to vote here, we should make the whole system of rights and entitlements less, not more, complicated than it is now. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, we should not end up with

legislation that discriminates in favour of the well off and well advised. Everybody should have equal opportunity to exercise their franchise.

Mr. Bercow: I fear that the hon. Gentleman might not achieve the equity and simplicity that he seeks. Would not a requirement for a declaration of intent discriminate unfairly against those persons who, through no fault of their own, were not at the time of emigration in a position to know whether, and therefore when, they would return?

Mr. Hughes: I understand that. We are getting into a lot of detail, although in Committee we probably need to do so. All one can ever do is declare that, in so far as it lies within one's power, one intends to return. Some people are posted abroad indefinitely and of course they cannot say how long they will be away. That is the purpose of our probing amendment, No. 82, which would at least allow one to declare one's intention to return within 10 years. The hon. Gentleman could suggest the alternative proposition that one should be able to declare one's intention to return at the earliest date on which one's employment allows.

Mr. Linton: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the provision that he is defending is the very one that allows some people, including some who have been mentioned in this debate, apparently to vote in two countries and pay tax in neither?

Mr. Hughes: That is exactly why we need to try to pull together all the different pieces of legislation. The benefit of Committees such as the Home Affairs Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman sits and alludes to often, is that evidence can be taken and conclusions reached about how best we can do that.
The hon. Gentleman rightly reminds us that the Home Affairs Committee expressed the unanimous view that there should be a five-year rule. We argue for a 10-year rule not because we have a fundamental objection to the five-year proposition but because of the pragmatic consideration that in a global economy people move around more often and are away for longer periods. The more that we thought about it, the more we came to that conclusion.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that whichever conclusion we reach—the five or 10-year proposition or anything other than the stipulation that one cannot be absent at all, with which we began the debate—we may need to find a mechanism through which people may declare their intentions, such as a register kept for the purpose. Otherwise, the system will be open to abuse and misinterpretation.
Hon. Members want to deal with the crude abuse of the system by those who leave this country for ever, have no intention of returning and, to use the cliche, live a life of Riley on the Costa del Sol or Brava, or somewhere else, but continue to have a vote and the ability to influence this country. The public certainly regard that as an abuse of the system. If people are definitely returning to this country, and soon, or are planning to do so, that is one thing, but if they have retired or settled elsewhere, there must come an early point at which their interests and right to influence the political system move with them.

Mr. Shepherd: I am concerned about the retirement element of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I notice in my constituency—I am sure that it is so for him, too—that, with early retirement, people are spending increasing time abroad. Taxation may be one reason, although for health reasons they may want a sunny climate. Nevertheless, their entire family and interests are still focused on the United Kingdom, they are not often integrated into local societies elsewhere, and, as they become older and often need medical advice, they return to the UK. Their link with the UK is clear, substantial and constant. Should they be deprived of the vote after 10 years?

Mr. Hughes: That is a valid question. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) took the original view that there should be no time limit. That is a perfectly proper alternative view at the other end of the spectrum to that of the right hon. Member for Gorton. To take the example given by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, someone may retire early and live in Spain but never become a Spanish citizen. Their assets, savings, tax liability and family might remain in the UK, and they might always return due to illness or to recover or to die.
We are not rejecting the proposition because it is wrong; it is a matter of struggling, as a Committee, to find a mechanism that prevents abuse of the system by those who intend never to return and who take all their interests elsewhere, but protects those who retain an interest in this country. Our considered view was that the 10-year proposition was about right, but that there may need to be some way of checking its operation. Otherwise, people in such a bracket will have the advantage of a vote here even though they may be as certain on leaving that they will never return as those who have been away for two or 20 years. That is why a simple 10-year rule may not be sufficient.
At the end of the day, the Committee must come to a view. The major point of dissent from the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Gorton is on the basis that one should not lose one's right to vote here just because one is out of the country, especially when for family, commercial or business reasons one has no alternative but to make such a choice. I hope that the Committee will come to a different conclusion from the right hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Denis MacShane: This debate has opened up some interesting themes about citizenship, which are complex. Is one a citizen because one's bloodline is of a given nation, as say the Germans; one was born in the nation, as say the Americans; or for other reasons? I was nervous to hear the idea emerging from some quarters that the Inland Revenue should decide who is and who is not a British citizen.
I have some interest in this debate, as will many people who are listening to it or will read it on the net tomorrow. We should have some regard for the 9 million fellow British citizens who will take some interest in the proceedings of this Committee.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: May I make a little progress? I am trying to be brief.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) began this excellent debate just before Christmas, but never could we have envisaged that the discoursus interruptus—if I may call it that—would cause such a follow-up, comprising many excellent contributions. He described himself as a grovelling sycophant. I hope that there is no one in the House who has greater admiration for his many talents than me.

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that there is.

Mr. MacShane: It takes one to know one.
Some might feel that my right hon. Friend was adopting a little Englander or anti-internationalist approach, but given his distinguished record as a shadow Foreign Secretary, his many wise writings on many aspects of international affairs and the deft way in which he managed to transport all his wonderful Select Committee to Hollywood for a lovely week of lying around on sun-loungers watching Hollywood films, one sees one of the great internationalists of the House and someone who knows the world intimately. However, it was not always thus.
In my right hon. Friend's wonderful book, "My Life in the Silver Screen", which I recommend to the Committee, he says that, as a boy,
I saw numerous westerns, all of which"—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. All this might be extremely interesting and very accurate, but it is not relevant to the debate—unless the hon. Member makes its relevance clear in the next few moments, as I hope he will.

Mr. MacShane: I shall if I may, Mr. Winterton. This debate is about whether our many citizens who live overseas should have the right to vote.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: No.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton tabled the amendment that will take away such citizens' right to vote. In his book, he says:
I saw numerous westerns, all of which I enjoyed but none of which I could understand, as I had no idea in which country the West was situated".
He has moved on from those boyhood moments to become a great internationalist, so I am surprised that he is inviting hon. Members, for the first time since I became a Member, to reduce the franchise. I thought that, on the whole, the British Parliament had always increased the franchise.

Mr. Barnes: Labour has not always tried to extend the franchise. Property and university votes were done away with because they were wrong—and it is wrong in connection with overseas votes.

Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is talking about people who had two votes in elections to this Parliament, but I am talking about those who have only one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and others propose to take away that vote.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: I am trying to make maximum progress to allow others to make proper speeches.
There are 650,000 British citizens currently living in the European Union who have a very close connection with and an interest in what happens in this country. There are 214,000 service personnel who live overseas sometimes for quite long periods, as we know from other debates.

Mr. Kaufman: They all have proxy rights.

Mr. MacShane: They do not all have property rights.

Mr. Kaufman: Every British service man and service woman abroad has the right to apply for a proxy vote and to exercise it. My amendment would not deprive them of the right to vote.

Mr. MacShane: The point is that all British citizens overseas may at times of high emergency or war be placed under some control by the Government. It seems rather odd that we may theoretically invite them to make sacrifices for the country but not allow them to vote if they so desire.
There are 840,000 people receiving United Kingdom state pensions abroad, and those people are directly connected to this country. That is a valuable network of British citizens, and it does not matter whether or not they are residents in this country. When Palmerston enunciated the great doctrine of civis Britannicus sum, he did not say that it was necessary to reside at 24, Park villas in Gorton to have British citizenship.
The paradox is that we allow more and more people to vote in this country who are not holders of British passports. Every European Union citizen living in this country may vote in European Parliament and local government elections.

Mr. Fabricant: I agree with most of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I am rather confused about the motives for them. Are they to be regarded as sycophancy for the Government Front Bench or is he advancing them because he voted in overseas elections when he was living in Switzerland?

Mr. MacShane: I could not vote in Switzerland when I lived there briefly.
I return to the key point. It has been suggested that we take away the right to vote from our own passport holders, but we are extending that right to nationals of foreign countries in this country. Every Irish citizen who comes here has the right to vote and, indeed, to stand for Parliament. I have no problems with that because it is a tribute to the tolerance of this country. It is wrong to reduce the right to vote to our passport holders when we extend that right to so many nationals of foreign countries who are foreign passport holders.
It is all the more perverse to reduce the right to vote of our citizens abroad when other countries are seeking to extend the right to vote of their citizens who are abroad. I expect that later this year we shall all on the Government Benches go to parties organised by Democrats Abroad, as they seek to get support for their candidates in the American election. Conservative Members may go to parties organised by Republicans Abroad. No American citizen has his right to vote taken away from him because he lives abroad. German citizens are allowed to live

abroad for 25 years before the right to vote is taken away from them. Spain allows all its citizens abroad to vote. Italy and Switzerland have recently changed their constitutions to allow their citizens abroad to vote. Many more citizens of all countries, including the United Kingdom, are living in the European Union or further abroad. It must be recognised that we now live in a more global economy and society.
A day or two ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton told me that the man who makes excellent salt beef sandwiches in St. John's Wood flies home to Israel to vote. I presume that he is an Israeli citizen and that he does not lose the right to vote because he provides excellent salt beef sandwiches in St. John's Wood.
India allows all of its citizens who are abroad to vote. The many Indian passport holders who live in this country can vote in their elections back home.
There are two more brief arguments with which I must deal. There is the question of residence and whether only one address should count. That would certainly present problems to Members of this place. When I was the local Labour party secretary in the Birmingham, Selly Oak constituency, I was encouraged to get all the students on to the electoral roll. Labour won that seat with the help of the students' votes in 1974. We lost it in 1979 because the students momentarily, or for another 18 years, swung back to the right.
Plumping is important and it needs to be dealt with by regulation. That is plumping in the sense of, for example, people putting all their votes into Vale of Glamorgan or any other particular place.
I do not know whether the amendment will be pressed to a Division. If it is, I ask the House of Commons not to send the message contained within it to our citizens who are working overseas. They might do so for a few years or for much longer. They are British citizens and we are proud of them. We shall not take from them the fundamental expression of citizenship in the modern world, which is the right to participate in the democratic process.

Mr. Grieve: I do not always agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), but on this occasion I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) because although I was present for the start of his speech before Christmas, I missed part of the middle and end of it this afternoon.
We have dwelt on citizenship, which is a key factor in whether someone should be allowed to vote. Some surprising arguments have been advanced because they seem to denigrate citizenship and to suggest that it is only a series of privileges to be abused. As Lord Haw Haw discovered to his cost, the abuse of his privilege of obtaining a British passport in 1940 before he zipped off to Germany to make his broadcasts cost him rather dear. He abused his citizenship rights and paid the penalty.
Citizenship carries rights and obligations. Someone who installs himself for 40 years in a foreign country but chooses to keep his British citizenship is retaining a privilege and a right that may be useful to him in terms of consular access if he has difficulties, but one that


places him under obligations. When someone is under obligations to a state, surely that gives him a right and an entitlement to have a voice in the way in which that country is run. It is a fundamental issue. The argument that is advanced by the right hon. Member for Gorton and others who wish to get rid of this right surprises me.
In part, I have a French background. I contrast the approach that appears to be adopted by France and the attitudes that seem to be advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. If a French citizen is overseas, that is seen as a great plus. He is out in the wider world and perhaps representing the interests of France for as long as he may be able to promote them. The French invite such people to their embassies every 14 July. They send newsletters to keep in touch with them and they encourage them to vote. They try to involve them as much as possible in the life of their country, with which they may have only the remotest contact.
Curiously, we have before us another form of Frenchness. I do not think that I have ever heard a greater series of Poujadiste arguments than those that have been put forward this afternoon in favour of getting rid of the overseas electoral register. They are all about people who are supposed to be milking the milch cow. It is alleged that they are abroad because they cannot pay tax. It is suggested that they are enjoying privileges while not fulfilling their obligations. Such a mean-minded set of reasons for getting rid of the overseas right to vote has rarely been heard.

Mr. Fabricant: I could not help but intervene on my hon. Friend when he mentioned that he is half French, given my surname, which is of French origin.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the French encourage their nationals to visit their embassies when abroad because although they may not be paying French tax, when they are working for French companies they are earning money for the French economy for the benefit of that nation? British embassies and commissions abroad do the same for our nationals who are working abroad. Although such people are not paying tax, they are still contributing to the welfare of the United Kingdom and therefore should be entitled to the vote.

Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend, but this issue goes wider than that. Someone living abroad may feel sufficiently connected with the United Kingdom to retain his citizenship. He may be a dual national, and dual nationals may vote in elections in two countries at once. If such a person feels sufficiently connected to be prepared to maintain the obligations of citizenship, it appears to me fundamental that that should give him an entitlement to be heard on how the country is run. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Barnes: For how many years?

Mr. Grieve: I would not have quibbled with the 20-year rule, but I note with interest that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has suggested that it should be for as long as citizenship is maintained. As an issue of principle, I do not disagree with that one iota, although I would not necessarily interfere with the present system.
There is a degree of mean-mindedness in the whole approach. As the hon. Member for Rotherham rightly said, it is profoundly ironic that, at a time when we have extended the franchise to large numbers of residents who have, for one reason or another, chosen not to take up the obligations of nationality and British citizenship, the amendment would deprive people who usually feel intimately connected with this country, loyal to it and interested in its well-being, of the right to vote. It would amount to kicking them out. I am wholly against it. The amendments are ill-considered, and I hope that the Committee rejects them.

Mr. Greenway: Arguments on the rights of United Kingdom citizens overseas to vote in parliamentary elections in this country have been well rehearsed and documented over a long period. This debate, like previous debates on the Bill, has been characterised by references to the history of the past 15 years or so on this and other electoral issues.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who proposed this amendment, made his position clear on Second Reading and in the debates on both sides of the Christmas recess. A study of the official record shows that he has, as he has always maintained, never been enthusiastic about this measure, and was unhappy about it in 1984. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and a former Member, Mr. Dave Nellist, whom we all miss, have been absolutely consistent throughout all the debates.
The right hon. Member for Gorton has two difficulties. First, although he may say that he has always opposed this measure, he was a senior member of the shadow Cabinet in 1989 when, at the instigation of the then Opposition, the current 20-year rule was introduced by an amendment. Reference has been made to the fact that he was the shadow Foreign Secretary at that time, so he cannot walk away from joint responsibility for the decision that was taken.
I suspect that in years to come, we will learn what views he expressed to Lord Hattersley, who as shadow Home Secretary sanctioned the tabling of the 20-year rule amendment by his junior colleague, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). It is worth reminding the Committee of what he said in 1989. He said:
a number of people will leave this country perhaps to… work in Europe or in other parts of the world but will still maintain a lively interest in the affairs of this country.
He went on to say that it was right that they should retain the right to vote and added:
I believe 20 years is a sensible compromise".—[Official Report, 5 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 411.]
That has been the settled position ever since.
The right hon. Member for Gorton has a second, more contemporary difficulty. As he admitted, his party does not agree with him. The excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) shows that there is some good sense on this issue among Labour Back Benchers. I greatly applaud what he said. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, he makes a gesture that seems to show that, rather than being sycophantic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) suggested, he may have done himself some damage. As a fellow Yorkshire Member, he has not


done himself any damage as far as I am concerned. It is always good for us to have a supporting contribution from Labour Members.
I also want to comment on the Liberal Democrat view. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke to the Liberal Democrat amendments. We know what the right hon. Member for Gorton thinks, and it looks like we know what the Government think, but we are less clear about the Liberal Democrat position. In 1989, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) argued that there should be no limit on overseas voting rights. I shall not detain the House with direct quotations, but anyone who studies Hansard will see that his position was unequivocal.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey accepted that, but seemed to suggest that there was now evidence of abuse and that that was why the Liberal Democrat position should change. In this debate, and when we touched on this issue on Second Reading on 30 November, no one has produced a shred of evidence of abuse. It has all been general innuendo. People have taken the opportunity to air their dislike of overseas voters having any rights.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the implicit suggestion of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that Britons living abroad are ordinarily ignorant about what is taking place in this country was never true, and is likely to be even less true now with the development of technology in general and the internet in particular? Such people are often very well informed about the affairs of this country.

Mr. Greenway: As always, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I shall come on to the changed circumstances of the world as it is now, because I agree with him that, if anything, it should encourage us to be more generous to British citizens living overseas and not less, as the amendment asks us to be.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that I understand the argument for an indefinite right. If he is arguing for that, does he accept that it should at least be qualified by a requirement to establish whether persons who have left these shores want to retain their link with this country and intend or hope to come back one day?

Mr. Greenway: I have not argued for an indefinite right. I reminded the House that that is what the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross argued for in 1989. I am arguing that the settled position that was reached by the House in 1989 should remain. I shall come on to other aspects of the debate, which may answer some of the hon. Gentleman's other points.
I want the hon. Gentleman to concentrate a little more on his own position. The Liberal Democrats support a 10-year limit in the amendments to which they have put their names. Their then home affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), said as recently as September that it should be seven years. On Second Reading, when this matter came up, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey advocated caution and further consultation. He said:
We must not act in haste and repent at leisure."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 192.]

Yet here we are, less than five working weeks later, being asked to accept a high-falutin amendment that suggests that people should sign a declaration before going abroad, and reintroduces the argument about taxation.
7 pm
That is another issue on which the Liberal Democrat view has changed dramatically. In the 1989 debates, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was scathing about the suggestion of a Labour Back Bencher that there should be a taxpaying requirement. I consider the proposal of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to be as nonsensical and impractical now as it was then. United Kingdom citizens move to live abroad—in many cases, because of their work. They may or may not pay tax, depending on their circumstances. Double taxation agreements are there to protect citizens of all countries, and to ensure that they need not pay tax twice. They choose to pay tax in the third country rather than here to avoid double taxation, not so that they can walk away from any obligations that they may have to the United Kingdom. Many expatriates working abroad would be both disadvantaged and disfranchised by the Liberal Democrats' proposal.
United Kingdom citizens who go abroad because of their work, often at short notice, experience a huge amount of disruption in their personal and domestic lives. It is doubtful whether they will give much thought to then-voting rights, and they are unlikely to give priority to signing the declaration proposed in amendment No. 82.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way briefly? Mr. Greenway: I will give way one last time.

Mr. Fabricant: Would not the signing of such a declaration be a pointless exercise in any event? People who wanted to retain the vote, and to make a declaration, could do so, even if they intended to remain abroad for any length of time. This is woolly thinking, which, if I may say so, is typical of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Greenway: I am glad that I allowed my hon. Friend to intervene.
We live at a time of increased globalisation. More and more people in all walks of life—and, I dare say, in all classes—are moving to live and work abroad; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) reminded us, the internet has led to additional globalisation, and allowed people who still have British passports and British citizenship to be fully informed about what is happening in their country of origin.
People who leave to work abroad often do so on a temporary basis, not knowing whether and in what circumstances the move may become permanent. We strongly believe that those people, as United Kingdom citizens, have a right to expect the House of Commons to protect their interests, which include their right to vote in parliamentary elections. The hon. Member for Rotherham made that point forcefully. What Parliament and the Committee must decide is for how long that voting right should remain. Until recently, the status quo of 20 years was regarded as a settled position, and we see no real case for change. The Government have argued that there should be no change to the franchise in the Bill, because


it implements the recommendations of the working party. We hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still the Government's view.
There were no discussions, and consequently there was no consensus in favour of the change, in the working party, but the Government have decided to include an amendment to 10 years in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which will implement the recommendations of the Neill committee. That committee, however, did not consider the issue either. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made that point forcefully during Monday's Second Reading debate, but neither the Home Secretary nor the Under-Secretary of State chose to respond to it.
The report of the Select Committee, of which both the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield are members, will show that Mr. Gardner, who gave evidence on behalf of the Labour party on overseas voting rights, told the Committee that a reduction in the 20-year entitlement was not a priority for Labour. We consider the argument that the franchise issue is closely linked with the funding issue, which the Home Secretary advanced on Second Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill on Monday, to be both spurious and insulting. Those issues should be considered separately.
This week, the Government promoted a Bill that suggested that voting rights should continue for 10 years. Now, we are about to hear the Minister argue that the right should be retained for 20 years. The Minister has admitted to me in written answers that the Government have made no estimate of the number of people who will be affected by the change. We think that it is around 3 million; the hon. Member for Rotherham said that it could be as many as 9 million. Surely that alone is an argument for thinking again before lowering the limit. I apologise for singling out the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, but anyone who heard his speech will realise that the proposals that we are being asked to accept have not been thought through.
The right hon. Member for Gorton and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire were consistent to an extent, but there are fundamental disagreements between us. Given the confusion, argument, counter-argument and profound concern about the political motivation for any proposed change, the Government should have consulted before proposing 10 years in the Bill that was debated on Monday. We have said that we will support the Neill Bill, but support for that Bill should not be seen as support for the argument in favour of 10 years. Today's debate has shown that more thought is needed.
If the 20-year rule is reduced or, worst of all, abolished, Parliament will disfranchise British citizens for the first time since 1832. This is a shameful, spiteful, mean-minded and ill-judged proposal that the Committee should reject.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his robust and eloquent speech, but I would have expected nothing else. My right hon. Friend is known to be a doughty campaigner for the causes that

he champions, and he has considerable knowledge and experience of electoral law—as, indeed, does my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I also listened with interest to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who put his case very well. Some of the issues that he raised are worthy of further consideration.
Having said that, however, I must add that I have been reminded somewhat of Sherlock Holmes's "dog that did not bark in the night" in the case of Silver Blaze. We have spent a good deal of time, before Christmas and this afternoon, discussing an issue that does not currently feature in the Bill—and, in my view, should not feature in it.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading that he believed that the rights of overseas voters and, in particular, the time that they should be allowed to remain on an electoral register after leaving the United Kingdom were serious issues that needed discussion. They are contentious issues, as has been shown by today's debate. He said that the Government hoped that, if possible, any changes in the period should be made on the basis of consensus. Most important, he suggested that such discussions should take place in the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. That Bill contains a provision that would reduce the period for overseas voters to 10 years, as we discussed during its Second Reading on Monday.
As today's discussions have demonstrated, the right to be on the electoral register is in many ways closely tied to the issue of who may make donations to political parties. That is one good reason why it would be better to leave discussion of the 20-year rule to the other Bill. I have no doubt that we can expect a lively debate on the issue at that time.
Another reason is that the Representation of the People Bill is intended to give effect to the recommendations of the working party on electoral procedures, which, I remind the Committee, was an all-party group that proceeded on the basis of consensus. With the small exception of the new false particulars offence in schedule 5, we have deliberately avoided going beyond the recommendations of the working party. The amendments would breach that principle.
The Government hope that the Bill will receive a fair wind in its passage through both this House and another place. That will enable the first innovative pilot schemes to be run at next May's local government elections. That timetable would be jeopardised if we embarked on consideration of a potentially controversial issue such as the time during which overseas voters may claim the right to vote. In the light of what I have said and in the knowledge that there will be an opportunity for full discussion of those issues, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members not to press the amendments to a vote.
I do not want to advance all the arguments. We have had much discussion today and I know that the Committee wishes to move to other important issues, but we take the view that 20 years is probably too long. People who have been away for effectively a generation may have little or no knowledge of contemporary issues in the constituency in which they vote. It is difficult to argue that a person should vote in an election for a Government of whom he has not been a subject for 20 years. However, as the


period away decreases to 10 years, the argument for reducing the period loses some of its strength. Although it may have some force, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, it has less force than that for reducing the 20-year period.

Mr. Brady: Has the Minister considered the position of pensioners who may have contributed taxes and national insurance throughout their working lives, who then go to live overseas—but depend on pensions, the level of which might be fixed by the House and by the British Government? Surely those people have a right to be enfranchised and to have a say, given that they have contributed not to a fully paid fund, but to something that will have variable benefits to be paid by decision of the Government. Those people should have some say in the matter.

Mr. O'Brien: There are strong arguments on both sides. Some people say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton did, that people should live in the country in which they vote for the Government. Others say that people may live outside the UK; be retired outside the UK, having contributed during their working lives; be abroad on business; or work for the United Nations, the European Union, charities overseas or commercial organisations, important as those are.
7.15 pm
Many of those people may retain homes in this country. Their children may go to school here. Many may have a clear intention to remain permanently here in future. Many may retain, as has been said in previous debates on the issue, a lively interest in affairs here. There is an argument that we should not deny them a vote. However, others who are resident abroad, perhaps for tax or other reasons, have no intention of ever returning here, yet for 20 years they are entitled to vote. There is arguably some unfairness in that.
It is difficult to create complex criteria that would be fair to everyone. People are so multifaceted and live in such a multitude of circumstances that any test that tries to apply to all of them would be so unnecessarily complicated that it would end up being arbitrary. We have concluded that although 20 years is too long, 10 years is a compromise that we hope the House will eventually be able to accept. There is an argument for ensuring that such debates do not cause unnecessary dispute. It is right that they be lively, but it is also right that the franchise and elections should not be the subject of substantial unnecessary dispute, with Governments chopping and changing after every election the way in which the franchise operates.
There are strongly held views and we need to look for a balance. The proposed reduction of the qualifying period for registration as an overseas voter from 20 to 10 years is a balanced and equitable response to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. As the Committee unanimously recognised, the existing 20-year qualifying period is excessive. It recommended restoring the original five-year qualifying period, but that may go too far in the other direction. As I have said, many people who work abroad for international organisations may reside abroad for more than five years, but have every intention of returning permanently. A reduction to 10 years strikes a balance.
I want to make it clear that it is not a question of making it difficult for particular individuals to make donations. The Government have reached a view on the matter on the basis of principle and of trying to achieve consensus.

Mr. Grieve: There is no consensus.

Mr. O'Brien: We are trying to bring about some sort of consensus. I accept that, as has been demonstrated in the debate, a consensus does not exist at the moment, but. as we progress, I hope that we will be able to come at least to a compromise, if not a consensus.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has asked whether clause 130 is set in stone or whether the Government will continue to think about it. We have always listened with great care to his views. I urge him to withdraw his amendment now and we will listen with care to his views during consideration of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. We have a considered view, but we will continue to listen. Perhaps our view is not set in stone, but it is a considered view. We will continue to listen to the debate. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Barnes: I hope that one of the groups that will not be greatly listened to in connection with overseas votes is the Conservative party and the Conservative Front-Bench team. When a measure was introduced in 1989 to extend the period to 25 years, and it was set at 20, the Conservative party tried to destroy electoral registration in this country through the linking of the poll tax to the electoral register. That led to 1 million people not being enfranchised.

Mr. O'Brien: I must make it clear that we listen to all views if they are properly put forward. We will listen to them with proper care. If they are put forward in a less than considered way, we will give them the credit that is due.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked about people in mental hospitals. People who are detained in mental hospitals are not, and never have been, banned from voting. However, they have been effectively disfranchised as they have not been able to register in respect of the hospital where they reside. The Bill would remedy that anomaly.
The hon. Gentleman raised citizenship issues, as did the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). However, although citizenship issues are important, they are not the only issues. In parliamentary elections, people who may be able to vote include British citizens, some Commonwealth citizens, Irish citizens and some overseas electors—who may also, of course, be citizens of other countries. In European parliamentary elections, British, Commonwealth and European Union voters—including Irish voters—may be able to vote. Different rules apply in local government elections. The issues are, therefore, neither simple nor attached only to citizenship. Moreover, there are restrictions on who is able to vote, based on age and various other factors.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked whether overseas voters would be able to pick and choose their constituency. People must be registered at the last address at which they were registered


in the usual way. People who were too young to be on the register when they lived in the United Kingdom must be registered at an address where they previously lived and where a parent or guardian was registered.
Therefore, to some extent, there is already a requirement for a constituency link—which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is seeking to strengthen—and that is one of the issues that we shall be able to address in our consideration of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his arguments then. There may well be ways of strengthening and making clearer the role of that link. Although I am currently not convinced that using the Inland Revenue is the best means of accomplishing that goal, we shall continue to listen with great care to the arguments being made.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) urged us not to legislate in haste on the issue and repent at leisure. However, we have a little more leisure time to consider the matter—at least until we again consider the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Strong arguments have been made on both sides of the franchise issue, and we shall have to try to reach if not a consensus, at least—to take the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—a compromise, so that we are able to go forward with some sense that we have achieved fairness.
On that basis, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton will withdraw his amendment, and that the hon. Members who tabled the other amendments will not press them.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and some other Conservative Members have said that the franchise should be based on citizenship, and that, if that happens, there should be no terminal period for that franchise. However, the Conservative party—which those hon. Members have voted for and supported at every level—has imposed such limits. Therefore, the principle that those hon. Members support—I respect their right as individuals to support it—has not been supported by the Conservative party in government.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned confusion on the issue, and said that he is opposed to chopping and changing policy. However, the Government whom he supported consistently chopped and changed on the issue. At various times, the previous Government offered the House four different time limits on the overseas vote: five years, seven years, 20 years and 25 years. It is therefore perfectly clear that Conservative Members do not regard time limits as a matter of principle; if they did, they would have decided on a figure and stuck to it. They seem to regard time limits as a convenience, or as something that they can get away with.
Some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), described overseas voting as a cherished right and the obligations of citizenship. However, overseas voting is not an obligation but an option. Moreover, it is an option that barely anyone takes up—although the results of people taking it up may be extremely invidious.
With deep affection, I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that he still needs to learn a lesson or two in sycophancy.

Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way; the Committee wishes to conclude this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham described 9 million people and 840,000 pensioners who potentially could be overseas voters. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) also mentioned pensioners' interests. If 840,000 pensioners are concerned about their pensions—the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware that those people's pensions are frozen when they move residence from the United Kingdom—and feel strongly about the issue, they could register to vote. We could have 840,000 overseas voters who are pensioners.

Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to wind up.
In fact, of the 9 million potential overseas voters mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and of the 3 million people mentioned by the hon. Member for Ryedale, 13,000 people are registered. We are speaking, therefore, not about an inalienable right, but of an option that only a handful of people decide to exercise, with possibly highly invidious results— including, as we know, the defeat of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith).
I can therefore tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, in response to his request, I shall withdraw my amendment. He said that he wants a consensus—which is fine—but I should be very grateful if he took into account the fact that consensus does not simply mean agreement between Ministers and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, but also agreement between Ministers and Labour Back Benchers. Provided that Ministers realise that 350 Labour Back Benchers have at least as great a vote as 160 Conservative Members—their number seems to be decreasing—and 46 Liberal Democrat Members, and that we have at least twice as much right as Opposition Members to participate in a consensus, I believe that the Minister's promise to listen might result in something that is acceptable to all of us.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

RESIDENCE: PATIENTS IN MENTAL HOSPITALS WHO ARE NOT DETAINED OFFENDERS OR ON REMAND

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Clause 4 is the result of work done by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his colleagues on the working party, seeking to correct clear civil disadvantages that have quite wrongly


been imposed on some of our fellow citizens. As mentioned earlier in the debate, the provision will enable those who are in mental hospitals, but who are not detained as offenders or on remand, to vote.
One of the last scandals of the old mental institutions— asylums—is that those who were physically ill and in hospital could vote, provided that they arranged to do so through a postal or proxy vote, whereas those who were in a mental hospital were not able to do so. That was disgraceful.
I should like simply to acknowledge that clause 4 will ensure that we remove some of the remaining stigmas attached to mental illness, and that it will make it absolutely clear that the distinction should be between those who have committed offences and are locked up because they are offenders, and those who may have temporarily lost their liberty or who are unable fully to exercise their liberty simply because they are mentally ill. It is a bit of enlightenment that should have occurred before the first year of the new millennium—if that is what it is—but it has come, and we welcome it.

Mr. Fabricant: I support this clause. MIND, which also supports the clause, estimates that 50 per cent. of those concerned would now be entitled to vote, and that the remaining 50 per cent. would benefit from the changes to the voting rules set out in the clause. That is all right and good. Judi Clements, chief executive of MIND, says:
For decades, thousands of detained patients have been denied the fundamental right to vote, that the vast majority of us take for granted. This could be a huge victory for the many people who could play their part as UK citizens.
It is interesting to note that the word "citizens" is used, given the earlier debate.
7.30 pm
MIND has also backed a controversial plan to extend the vote to mentally ill people who have been through the criminal court—a subject that was dealt with earlier. Judi Clements said:
This is a far smaller number, but it is inconsistent to give some people on psychiatric wards the vote and not others. They are not being held in prison, but in hospital.
I disagree with that. If persons have committed crimes, the fact that they are in a mental hospital as opposed to prison is an inconsistency. It is right that the Government agree with that and have said that, as those who have committed a criminal offence and are detained in prison are not allowed to vote, the same should apply to those held in a mental hospital.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Surely if somebody is so confused that they are in a mental hospital, they are too confused to determine whether they should vote for the Conservatives, the Labour party, the Liberals or any other party.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend—for whom I have the highest regard—he is labouring under a delusion about the numbers and the sort of people who enter mental hospitals. An interesting statistic is that 25 per cent. of people in the UK will, in the course of their lives, suffer from mental illness—although, of course, only a minority will go, either voluntarily or by force, into a mental hospital.
Many such people are not confused at all. Many suffer from anxiety or depression, but not from dementia. Many do not suffer from psychoses such as schizophrenia, which might induce confusion. If I can remember some of my university studies on schizophrenia, there is catatonic, simple and hebephrenic—there are so many different types of schizophrenia, most of which do not involve confusion, as such. My elongated answer to my hon. Friend's reasonable point is that the vast majority of those in mental institutions are easily able to determine which way they wish to vote.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to support the hon. Gentleman and allay the concerns of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many people who may be too ill to concentrate on voting because of periodic mental illness recover from that quickly—schizophrenia is a good example—just as many are too ill to vote when they are in hospital for a physical ailment? People are not taken off the register because they go into a coma or have an operation.
Many elderly people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaby—indeed, in all of our constituencies— in theory may not be as capable of voting as many others. However, there are provisions for dealing with them, such as proxy voting and voting by post. Eventually, if they decide that they are not up to it, they will not do it. However, we cannot categorise one group as being more incapable than another.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises a sound point. It is difficult enough for doctors to diagnose various types of mental disorder, without the Government or Parliament trying to diagnose, for the doctor's sake, those who may or may not be temporarily confused. Most people listening to the soundbites and spin from the Labour party are confused most of the time—I certainly am.

Mr. William Ross: I was always under the impression that the reason why people in mental hospitals were excluded from the right to vote was that it was held that they were not capable of making a rational decision. If that is incorrect, I am glad to be corrected. However, we are talking about a group of people who, by any standard, need care because of their mental condition—perhaps throughout their life. Under the changes that are now being made, where do they stand if they are in a mental hospital?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises a fascinating point. The course of mental illness changes, and people can go in and out of confusion as the course of treatment varies. At one time, certain types of schizophrenia were seen to be permanent. However, with drug treatment and a suitably effective regime, people can drift into and out of consciousness in terms of their ability to make a rational decision on casting their vote:
The hon. Gentleman said that, in the past, it was felt that people in mental institutions should not be allowed to vote. I remind him not only that that was a function of people's prejudices against those spending time in mental institutions, but that there were times in the 1920s when people were put into institutions simply because they had given birth to a child out of wedlock. People were put into mental institutions in the Soviet Union simply


because they disagreed with their Government. Not only do we have the problem of deciding who is and who is not capable of voting in a mental institution—and at what time they are capable of voting—but there can be doubt as to whether some people should be in a mental institution or not.
The Government have moved with the times on this matter, and I am pleased that my Front-Bench colleagues support the clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising this issue, which was liable to have passed almost unnoticed. As he rightly said, clause 4 is also about residence, but with reference to the registration of detained and voluntary mental patients.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was labouring under a misapprehension. At present, voluntary mental patients are entitled to register at their home address by means of a patient's declaration. This clause removes that requirement. It also enables all patients in mental hospitals, other than those who are detained as a result of criminal activity—an important qualification—to register in respect of the hospital, if they are liable to be there for some time, or at some other address, such as the address where they would be living if they were not in hospital.
It is important that people resident in mental hospitals, whether they are voluntary or detained patients, should have the same right to register as anybody else. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) talked about confusion, and his point was well answered by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). Mental illness is not a static condition, and it can move over time. To rule someone out, or to make legal judgments about the state of someone's mental health on a continuing basis, would be inappropriate. It would also be a minefield in terms of electoral law.
We must therefore assume that most of those in a ward or a special hospital are there on the basis that they have a condition that may or may not be curable, but that they should enjoy more or less the same rights of citizenship as everybody else, including the right to vote.

Mr. Grieve: I wholly agree with the Minister. We all know from experience in our constituency surgeries that some of the people who come to see us are not in mental hospitals but are clearly in a state of confusion that would make it impossible for them to exercise their right to vote, but we do not take them off the electoral register. I am convinced that many people who are detained under the Mental Health Acts are perfectly capable of rationally exercising a right to vote, so in amending the law as the clause does we are removing an anomaly and a stigma that are quite unnecessary.

Mr. Howarth: I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and I share an interest in Ashworth special hospital, which is in my constituency. Some of the well-known patients are in there because of a criminal conviction, but others are there simply because they need a period of help to overcome difficulties with

their mental health. It would be wrong for those who are there, possibly for a short time but possibly for quite a protracted period, to be excluded from the franchise.
It is important that those who are resident in a mental hospital, whether they are detained or voluntary patients, should have the same right to register as anybody else. There is no reason why people should be disfranchised because of their mental health. I hope that the consensus that we have established will hold, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

RESIDENCE: PERSONS REMANDED IN CUSTODY ETC.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This clause is also an improvement. In the past, if one was unconvicted in prison, one had the right to vote in theory, but that right would normally be registered at one's home, so in fact one would lose one's vote because if one was in prison at the time of registration, no one would do anything about it.
Those of us who have prisons in our constituencies—I am not one, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) has the largest number of prisoners in his constituency—may suddenly inherit a large number of voters in the form of the unconvicted prisoners temporarily resident in one of Her Majesty's institutions. It is clearly right to give people the right to vote where they are, and if they are unfortunately resident on remand in a prison for several months, that is where they should be able to vote.
People on remand are often of very little fixed abode elsewhere, and the prison may be the most permanent residence that they have had for some time. The measure will not affect huge numbers, but it brings into the political process people who were previously kept out, which is welcome.

Mr. George Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the clause is designed to make it easier for people who are remanded in custody to register as electors. Remand prisoners currently have the right to vote— although some of the press reporting would have us believe otherwise—but they are often disfranchised in practice because they cannot register in respect of their home address while they are detained elsewhere.
The clause provides that people on remand may be registered as if they were resident at their previous address or may register in respect of the institution where they are held. The basic principle is that remand prisoners are by definition unconvicted, and although it is right and appropriate that those who are convicted and serving a prison sentence should be deprived of the right to vote as part of their punishment, that should not be the case for those who have not been proved to have committed an offence.
The clause enables people to enjoy rights that they already had but that they were denied because of their detention on remand.

Mr. Fabricant: I understand the Minister's argument, and the argument advanced by both the Government and the Opposition that convicted criminals should not have the vote, but I wonder what his view is on the recent conclusion of the South African and Canadian Governments that the disenfranchisement of convicted criminals is unconstitutional on human rights grounds. Has he given any consideration to what view the European Court of Human Rights may have, given the statement that was made earlier today regarding the armed forces?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman consults the front of the Bill, he will find that, as with all legislation, there is a declaration by the Secretary of State that its provisions are consistent with the European convention on human rights. In those circumstances, I am sure that he will accept that the matter has been deliberated on and considered appropriately and would not be in the Bill if there were any problems with it. He will forgive me if I do not stray into speculating on what arguments may have taken place in other parts of the world. I am simply not familiar enough with the debates that took place there.
It has suddenly occurred to me that the disenfranchisement of prisoners is consistent with the jurisprudence of the convention. I am sure that that is the answer that the hon. Gentleman would have expected from me. With that assurance, I am sure that he will support the clause, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

NOTIONAL RESIDENCE: DECLARATIONS OF LOCAL CONNECTION

Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 23, at end insert
and shall be accompanied by at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant is a living person and at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant has resided at the required address, provided that this requirement shall be satisfied by the production of a single item of documentary evidence only, if that item demonstrates both that the declarant is a living person and that he has resided at the required address.
(3A) The items of documentary evidence required for the purposes of subsection (3) shall be any of

(a) a valid United Kingdom passport;
(b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;
(c) a printed statement from a bank or building society authorised to do business in the United Kingdom and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration;
(d) a copy of any of the foregoing certified by a commissioner for oaths;
(e) a letter from an officer of a registered charity active within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address;
(f) a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address,


or such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3).
(3B) If a person makes a declaration of local connection supported by items of documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3A) and one or more items of that documentary evidence are false, he is guilty of an offence.
(3C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3B) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale.
(3D) The declaration of any person convicted of an offence under subsection (3B) of this section shall be rendered void upon his conviction.".

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 113, in page 8, line 23, at end insert
and shall be accompanied by at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant is a living person and at least one item of documentary evidence of the type referred to in subsection (3A) below demonstrating that the declarant has resided at the required address, provided that this requirement shall be satisfied by the production of a single item of documentary evidence only, if that item demonstrates both that the declarant is a living person and that he has resided at the required address.
(3A) The items of documentary evidence required for the purposes of subsection (3) shall be any of—

(a) a valid United Kingdom passport;
(b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;
(c) a current passport issued by the Government of a member state of the European Community;
(d) a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by a United Kingdom Government department;
(e) a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency or the Great Britain equivalent;
(f) a card made of plastic issued by the Department of Health and Social Security with a name and national insurance number embossed on it;
(g).in the case of a woman married within two years prior to polling day, a certified copy of extract of any entry of marriage issued by the Register General in the United Kingdom;
(h) an United Kingdom identity card bearing a recent photograph of the elector;
(i) a printed statement from a bank or building society authorised to do business in the United Kingdom and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of declaration;
(j) a copy of any of the foregoing certified by a commissioner for oaths;
(k) a letter from an officer of a registered charity active within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address;
(l) a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address, or such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3).

(3B) If a person makes a declaration of local connection supported by items of documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3A) and one or more items of that documentary evidence are false, he is guilty of an offence.


(3C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3B) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale.
(3D) The declaration of any person convicted of an offence under subsection (3B) of this section shall be rendered void upon his conviction.".

Mr. Evans: I hope that the consensus that we witnessed on clauses 4 and 5 will also be evidenced on clause 6.
One of the more depressing aspects of the Bill is the admission that there is in our society a small group of people who for various reasons are denied what most of us would regard as a basic necessity of life in a civilised society: a roof over their heads. I appreciate the fact that the term "homeless" is divided between rough sleepers and those who are between homes, perhaps in temporary hostel accommodation or living with relatives while awaiting rehousing, but I am concerned with those in the first category.
The Bill brings the situation into the 21st century and admits the fact that we have a group of people in our society who are genuinely homeless. The position varies in different parts of the country. The Minister will know of the problems in his constituency, as I know of those in mine. I have the good fortune to represent a rural constituency, and when I asked one of the local government officers there today what impact she thought the Bill would have when it was enacted, she said that she thought it would have none whatever, because nobody in Ribble Valley was sleeping rough and therefore unable to be on the register.
I spoke to the returning officer in Ceredigion today and he, too, said that there was very little problem there, but we know that in urban areas there are enormous problems. Many of us walk up Victoria street at night on the way home. It is one of the most depressing journeys that we can make. The problem has existed for many years, so I will not try to apportion blame. In the shop doorways there are people sleeping rough, with blankets over them, in a sleeping bag or, even more depressingly, with nothing more than a cardboard box.
Near McDonald's and the Army and Navy store in Victoria street, there are at least 20 individuals sleeping rough—I walk past them every evening on the way back to my flat. Shelter estimates that between 1,500 and 2,000 people sleep rough, but no one can say with certainty how many do so. It is a dreadful shame that those people are denied the opportunity to vote that is given to everyone else. They suffer the indignity of living how they do and they should not suffer the further indignity of not being allowed to participate in the democratic process. Indeed, some people may argue that the homeless should have more of a say in what happens because of the conditions in which they live.
We approach this issue with a determination equal to that of the Government. People should not be excluded from voting, but we wish to ensure that that is achieved as sensibly as possible. Our concerns were raised by Paul Gribble, who was the Conservative nominee on the working group, which said of the definition of locality:
We recognise that this could be thought to open the system to abuse if a candidate or political party sought to use such declarations to falsely register supporters in the electoral area immediately before an election.

In a letter to the shadow Home Secretary dated 20 September 1999, the Home Secretary said about the possibility of fraud:
I think that it is important to recognise that the declaration of locality route would be a last resort. The homeless would be encouraged to register wherever possible in respect of an address with which they could establish a link, such as a hostel or day centre which they used regularly.
He added
I do not believe that Mr. Gribble's fears are well grounded; but I would of course be happy to discuss this point further to see whether we could modify the proposal in some way so as to meet your party's concerns.
That is what we are trying to do this evening and in that spirit we have tabled amendment No. 13, which is similar to amendment No. 113.
Amendment No. 13 would require some documentary evidence of a person's link to a locality, such as a valid passport or UK driving licence. We appreciate that production of such items may not always be possible so we have also included other items, such as:
a letter from the principal officer of a hostel for homeless persons within the parliamentary constituency and which is dated not more than 28 days before the date of the declaration certifying that the declarant is a living person and has resided at the required address".
We have made six suggestions and I am sure that the Minister and his officials have considered other forms of documentary proof that would not block people's right to vote but would also ensure that the right is not abused.
We seek to ensure that some proof is given that a person is eligible to be registered in a particular area. The amendment would also make it an offence to make a false declaration, and of course any such declaration would be null and void. It is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Government will consider our proposals so that we can extend the franchise without opening up any opportunities for fraud in the registration procedure.

Mr. William Ross: Amendment No. 13 attracted my attention when I read the list of amendments and the House will see that amendment No. 113 is a repeat, except that it adds a few more documents. The documents that I have added to the list are those that are required in Northern Ireland before a ballot paper is issued. I would have thought that that would be a good starting point for considering the need to require some sort of documentary evidence of identity or association with an area.
The Minister will also be aware that the Conservatives have tabled amendments to clause 10. They concern voting taking place on more than one day and would require similar forms of identification. The Conservatives are following through on the issue of identification, which has been necessary in Northern Ireland for many years.
I tabled amendment No. 113 to try to ensure that whatever documentation is needed in London is also needed in Londonderry, Edinburgh, Belfast or wherever. We should have a common means of identification throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will consider the issue and come up with a common set of documents encompassing those already required in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, the legislation in Northern Ireland talks about full and provisional driving licences, but the term "valid" covers the point.
I have also included in the amendment the possibility of using a United Kingdom identity card bearing a recent photograph of the elector. I am well aware of all the


arguments, because I have listened to them for the past 25 years in this House, about the possible intrusion into the privacy of individuals that identity cards would cause. However, I do not share those concerns. So much information is held on computers in every bank, building society and sales point in the country that no one should be worried about identity cards. Such a document would give great protection against fraud, including electoral fraud, and the Minister will be aware from his experience in Northern Ireland of our concerns on that issue. I do not believe that most people would have a problem with an identity card, and the warnings about invasion of privacy are nonsense and should not be given much weight.
I speak in support of amendment No. 113 in the same spirit as the official Opposition moved amendment No. 13. I wish to ensure that common identification is required throughout the UK and to make a further plea for the Government to reconsider the issue of having a proper identity card that could be used for this and other purposes.

Mr. David Heath: Clause 6 is interesting, as are the amendments, and there are some basic merits to both. I welcome the intention to extend the franchise to people who have been left out, and I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that that is a timely amendment of our constitutional arrangements.
I admire the care that the parliamentary draftsmen and Ministers have put into the drafting of the clause, even to the extent of enfranchising homeless peers. I have no idea whether they comprise a growing sector of the community, although recent events may have increased their numbers.
8 pm
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley is right to say that there is a potential problem of personation. We should all be worried about whether personation is encouraged by any provision in the Bill. However, I do not think that the remedy suggested by the hon. Gentleman is right. His proposed list of qualifying documentary evidence would sit poorly with the circumstances faced by many homeless people. Few of them will have a driving licence, or carry with them a UK passport; even fewer will have a bank account or the regular statements that such an account produces. There is a sense of unreality about some of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.
Some elements of the proposed documentary evidence, such as accreditation from a hostel, appear more relevant to homeless people. However, many homeless people never see the inside of a hostel. In the metropolis such places are oversubscribed, and they do not exist in rural areas, so a person could not gain the necessary accreditation within the qualifying period.

Mr. Evans: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says, which is why we have tried to broaden the documentation that might be applicable. Indeed, the amendment refers to
such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the matters referred to in subsection (3).

Local police officers and charity workers often find people sleeping rough. Under that provision, they would be able to provide a note stating that they know that a person sleeps in a certain place on a regular basis. The effect of the amendment could be quite broad.

Mr. Heath: That intervention helps the discussion, as it is now clear that there is no secret agenda to limit the improvements to the franchise that the clause is trying to introduce.
In addition, I applaud the approach adopted by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who has also proposed a widening of the documentary evidence that could be deemed acceptable. However, he identified the other difficulty that I have with the amendment. The same level of documentary evidence required to avoid personation should also be required of every elector on the register. There is no obvious reason why people qualified to vote through declarations of local connection should face a more onerous test to prove that they are who they purport to be than any other electors in the United Kingdom. Different tests apply in Northern Ireland, so the same difficulties do not arise there.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Identification is important. The tragedy is that presiding officers consider that a document is not valid if it is even one day past its expiry date. In Northern Ireland, driving licences contain a picture of the person to whom it applies. We must be careful that we do not prevent people from voting by the use of over-precise legal language. Rather than yielding to the arguments of civil libertarians, would it not be better to adopt a common identity document, with a picture, for everyone?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has assisted the debate. The difficulty that he has described may apply when we attempt to identify what is appropriate documentary evidence. However, my point is that the same considerations should apply to all voters, regardless of how they are registered.
The situation in this country at present is extraordinary. A person can roll up to a polling station and claim to be someone on the register, but no check is made to confirm that person's identity.

Mr. Grieve: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but are we not concentrating too much on how people get registered? One of the problems with personation is that people turn up at polling stations and impersonate others who have been registered previously. The anxiety about those who are of a peripatetic disposition derives not from the fear that they will impersonate other people when they register, but that they will take advantage of other people's absence from an area to impersonate them and take advantage of those people's votes at an election.

Mr. Heath: I understand that concern, but it applies to every registered elector. That is precisely the point that I am making.
The hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for East Londonderry have identified a real problem. I am not convinced that their proposed solutions are the right way to deal with that problem. In fact, I am rather convinced


that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is not the right answer, as it will discourage homeless people from registering.
However, the Government must consider the matter carefully. At the very least, when and if the Bill is enacted, they must review the practical effects of the new arrangements over their first few years in place. If there is any evidence that the opportunities for personation have been extended and that people are abusing the system, the question of appropriate documentation will have to be examined again. That documentation must be sufficient to identify voters when they register and when they vote. I do not think that we have got there yet, but I look forward to the Minister's response.

The Chairman: I call Mr. Michael Fabricant.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Haselhurst.

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman continues to address me in that way, I shall begin to think that he knows something that I do not.

Mr. Fabricant: I argued, Sir Alan, at some length against the proposal of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to reduce the franchise, so it would be churlish of me to argue against this clause, which would extend it to homeless people. However, the possible difficulties of the provision have already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The potential for personation and multiple voting is very great, and I welcome what the hon. Member for Somerset and Frome—

Mr. David Heath: Somerton.

Mr. Fabricant: I am not doing very well, Sir Alan, with proper names or constituencies: perhaps I should just sit down. However, I shall not ask hon. Members for a judgment on that, as I suspect that I know what the answer might be.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is absolutely right to say that the political effects of extending the franchise to the homeless would have to be monitored—there are difficulties in identifying people who turn up to vote and ensuring either that they are not voting in multiple locations or that other people are not voting for them in other parts of the country simultaneously.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: A homeless tramp registered to vote in the constituencies of, for example, St. Helens, South, St. Helens, North and Makerfield would have to rush around on polling day to vote for all the Labour candidates in those areas. On his income, how could he afford to do it? That is a rather farcical example, but is not the reality that the homeless do not register or vote because they are homeless?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about the practicality of voting. I shall give him an example of what might happen in practice.

Many homeless people have moved to the area of Brighton and Hove in recent years, and many residents of that area feel that their town has been taken advantage of. It is very easy to walk through three constituencies— Hove, Brighton, Pavilion and Brighton, Kemptown—in 15 minutes. It is possible for someone to be able to vote in three constituencies—it does not require money to do so. I emphasise that I am not suggesting that people will do this, but it is possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield gave an example of someone who did not have voting rights who could pick up a slip of paper, walk into a constituency and vote. That would be personation.
We agree with the clause in general, but it will be important to monitor its practical effects.

Mr. Bermingham: I am thinking back over my practical experience, and declaring an interest as a practising lawyer. I can remember only one case of double voting and repeat voting in the past 30-odd years. I have asked many of my colleagues if they can remember any, and they cannot. Repeat voting does not seem to be an English habit.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but it surprises me, given that he is a very experienced lawyer. He will be aware of the difference between a crime being detected and a crime being committed. Multiple voting and personation were discussed when we debated this issue last year, and we just do not know how much it happens. I suspect that it is not material; I suspect that Governments have not fallen as a result of such practices. But for heaven's sake, when we introduce legislation, we try to ensure that crimes are not committed.
I welcome an extension of the franchise, but we must be sure that it will not be abused. Just because the hon. Gentleman cannot remember such a crime being committed, it does not mean that it does not happen. It can be argued that the influx into hostels of people who have the franchise has changed local election voting patterns slightly. We cannot be so sure that these practices might not occur. I am simply asking that the legislation is good legislation and that it is regularly reviewed. Will the Minister give an assurance that the practical effects of the legislation be monitored and reported to Parliament from time to time, as is applicable, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome requested?
I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on identity cards. Although it would not be appropriate to discuss the benefits or otherwise of identity cards now, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the majority of people in the country would not object to the issue of identity cards. The only objection, perhaps, should be to the compulsory carrying of identity cards at all times. All Members of Parliament have identity cards, but if we carried out a straw poll in the Chamber tonight on how many of us were carrying them, I suspect that the result would not be 100 per cent.
With those reservations, I support not only the amendment but the clause.

Mr. Keith Darvill: I oppose the amendment. I understand what Conservative Members have been saying, but their proposals would upset the balance.
Clause 6 is to be welcomed; it is an innovation, and will extend the franchise. However, the amendments would create hurdles that those making a declaration would find difficult to overcome. Homeless people wishing to take advantage of the extension might not have any of the documents listed in the amendment in their possession. If I could be convinced, however, that using either information technology or some other form of identification would be simple and would not prevent those wishing to make a declaration from doing so, I might be more in favour of the amendments. Otherwise, I urge the Committee not to accept them.

Mr. Grieve: I have a number of brief points to make. First, I welcome the thrust of the Bill. It is very desirable that the franchise should be extended to all those who are entitled to it and that they should be able to avail themselves of it easily. It is clear, therefore, that homeless people are a category that should be addressed.
As was said earlier, there is anxiety about the growth of personation at elections. I spent a lot of time in an inner-city constituency, where that anxiety centred on the tendency to encourage those leading a more transient existence, particularly in hostels, to register and the problem of what happened to the polling cards on polling day when those people had moved to other addresses. Personation can in general be detected only if the person being impersonated turns up to vote. If they do not, there is an opportunity under the existing identification rules for that person to be impersonated and for someone else to exercise, quite wrongfully, their right to vote.
My anxiety about the extension of registration rights is not about the peripatetic tramp. I have every confidence that if he decides to be registered, he will exercise his right to vote properly if he chooses to do so. I am concerned that someone, taking advantage of the fact that such a person is unlikely to exercise his right to vote, will impersonate him.

Mr. Bermingham: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's experience is the same as mine in that, by and large, year in, year out, at both local and national elections, polling stations are manned by the same polling clerks, who get to know the voters. I know all the clerks in my area, and they get to know the electors. Polling clerks are our best defence against the wandering multiple voter. That is why I said earlier that if anyone had evidence of such a practice, would they please give it to me.

Mr. Grieve: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about that. In an urban environment, such as the one in which I was a councillor, I do not think that polling station staff are in a position to carry out that kind of detective work.
So how do we address this problem? I accept that this may not be the best place to do it. We need to consider the problem in the round. It might also be unfortunate to do it precisely when we are concentrating on trying to encourage certain categories of people to register and to vote. However, the point requires attention.
I have never been in favour of identity cards, so I accept that there is a catch-22 surrounding my argument in deciding how to deal with this thorny problem.
I cannot say for certain whether the problem is growing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the proposition of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) against that of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). In more than 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I know of various occasions in my constituency when people have turned up to vote to find that someone has voted in their place. I have a 25 per cent. turnover of electors a year, and the electoral staff, who are very competent, do not even begin to think that they can monitor electors, even if they work in the same polling station from one year to the next, which is rare. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it is a question of finding a way to deal with the problem.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was drawing to a close, but shall give way once more.

Mr. William Ross: Two points have been raised. First, it is not the role of electoral staff to identify electors. That role has always been taken in Northern Ireland by party representatives who can challenge those who try to personate. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is dealing with an amateurish personation. It is a very different ball game in West Belfast.

Mr. Grieve: I do not feel qualified to comment on circumstances in Northern Ireland, although I know from anecdotal evidence and otherwise that there appears to have been a particular problem of personation there. That is why separate rules have been devised. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The amendment has been tabled in good faith to ensure that the issue is discussed. The point will not go away, and I believe that we shall have to reconsider it later.

Mr. George Howarth: I entirely accept that the Opposition's motive in tabling the amendment is honourable and reasonable. They are trying to achieve the laudable objective of preventing electoral fraud. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out that I chaired the working party that considered the proposals when I was a Home Office Minister. It was one of our rules that every proposal should be treated with care so that no suggestion that we made would compromise the integrity of the ballot in any way. Although there are problems in some parts of the United Kingdom, to which I shall refer later, our electoral system is, if not entirely free of fraud, well respected, and it has a lot of integrity.

Mr. Fabricant: Following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)— no longer in his place—how can the Minister be sure that there is not much fraud? What research does the Home Office do? If fraud had been committed by personation and had not been detected, surely the Home Office would not know of it.

Mr. Howarth: I do not want to be drawn into examples arising from the general election or any other recent election. The Home Office can conduct a review after every general election. If there is any evidence, it is generally, for obvious reasons, political parties that uncover it before passing it on to the Home Office. I do not suggest that the system is wholly free of fraud.


There have been cases, and some, I think, are under investigation by the police in certain parts of the country at present. However, a pattern to fraud would tend to be noticed by presiding officers or the political parties. In one or two recent cases, a political party has complained about the activities of another, throwing some light on what has been happening. We cannot be absolutely certain that there is no fraud, and we must be vigilant. We must consider all proposals, but must also examine whether they would compromise the integrity of the ballot.
It is a fundamental principle that everyone has an equal right to vote. Since the adoption of universal suffrage, everyone, irrespective of wealth or status, has been concerned to know that that principle is being upheld. I fear that the amendment might send the wrong message to a section of the community. I know that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) does not want that to happen. If we agree that the right to vote applies to everyone, we must also agree that everyone must have the same right to register. We cannot have one without the other. We must be careful, therefore, before erecting any obstacle that would affect one section of the electorate and not another.
That, inadvertently, is what the amendment would do. Registration would become harder for those who wish to register by means of a local connection than it would be for other electors. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who tried to take a balanced view, referred to that danger in his short speech. It would be inappropriate to ask homeless people or mental patients to produce bank statements or passports. Meanwhile, a head of a household who registers in the normal way may, when filling in the annual form, add a new name that was not on the form in the previous year. The registration officer would accept that without any requirement for documentary evidence establishing that the new person was alive and resident at the address in question. It would be taken on trust.

Mr. William Ross: Am I mistaken, or is it the case in Great Britain and Northern Ireland that any elector can challenge a name on the electoral register?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. Normally, a head of household fills in a form. There is no reason why the same rule should not apply to those who register by means of a declaration of local connection. Anyone who doubts the validity of a person registered in that way will be able to object to registration, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. One of the Bill's purposes, however, is to make it easier for people to register, particularly those people disadvantaged by existing rules. To impose an additional and difficult burden that other electors would not have to face would run totally counter to that principle.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister concede that someone who knowingly filled in a registration form incorrectly and falsely would be committing an offence and could be fined?

Mr. Howarth: As I understand it, that is the case.

Mr. Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I was about to deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I am more than happy to accept his intervention.

Mr. Ross: The measure introduces the principle of rolling registration, thus the time scale before an election might make it impossible for someone to object to a name on the register. Could the Minister deal with that point?

Mr. Howarth: Certainly. The register would be more up to date and people would have a longer time in which to register, so the difficulty described by the hon. Gentleman could arise. However, we have to judge whether inserting an obstacle for certain groups is justified by giving other groups longer in which to object to a particular entry. We should all want to be convinced that the problem was important enough to be catered for in that way before we took that course.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like me and other Members, the Minister probably receives a regular update of the electoral register. I receive one every month from my electoral services department. That gives one a means of checking and assimilating information. What is the plan for providing information about the rolling register to parties, councillors and Members of Parliament? Without such a plan, throughout the country, the problem of spotting someone who is registered at two addresses will grow rather than diminish.

Mr. Howarth: I must be honest. The hon. Gentleman and other Members will be aware that I am on a no fee loan to the Home Office for the purposes of the Bill. That came about because I chaired the working party, although no one felt it necessary to explain to me why my presence was required. I am thus not wholly up to date with developments in the Home Office. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman needs to be dealt with and I shall ensure that the appropriate Minister responds to him.
The list of documents in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry is slightly wider than those listed in amendment No. 13, for reasons that the Committee may understand. However, the amendment would have an impact on homeless people. Furthermore, it would place on such people a burden that would not apply to other voters who would not have to satisfy those conditions. In that sense, it would be unfair to homeless people.
As the hon. Gentleman's set of concerns is more particular to Northern Ireland than it is common in Great Britain, it might be helpful if, in his capacity as a Member of Parliament for a Northern Ireland constituency and in my capacity as a Northern Ireland Office Minister, we were to hold further discussions on the matter. If necessary, I shall make representations to the Home Office subsequently. I hope that he will accept my invitation to hold those discussions.
However, I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance. Mr. Pat Bradley, who will be known to him and is well respected as the electoral officer for Northern Ireland, was a member of the working party. Mr. Bradley's views were listened to with great attention, and when there were concerns about the situation in Northern Ireland, we listened even more carefully.


We benefited from his experience, which we took very seriously indeed. I shall, of course, listen to the hon. Gentleman's concerns and make any representations that I consider to be necessary.
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in the context of clause 6 and his amendment, I do not enter into a debate on identity cards. Vexed issues arise from that matter, and the Government have taken the view that there are no plans on it at present. I cannot rule that out for ever, but I shall not promote a debate on that vexatious subject this evening. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. His experience in Northern Ireland means that he has special reasons for the position that he takes on the matter.
The hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) took a reasonable approach— and I do not exclude the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) from that statement. Indeed, during his contribution, I was pondering the fact that if anyone tried to impersonate him at the ballot box, they would quickly be rumbled. That would certainly not be a problem for him.
However, his hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley and for Beaconsfield suggested that their enthusiasm for the amendment was not such that they would necessarily push it to a vote. I believe that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was looking for an assurance that the issues raised during the debate would be considered further. He is well aware that, on these issues, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary listens very carefully to the views of the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I will ensure that the issues that have been raised in the debate are drawn to his attention, and I am certain that he will give them proper consideration. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would be possible to—

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Lichfield seeks to intervene.

Mr. Fabricant: I am glad that the Minister recognised me. Will he give the assurance, asked for by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and re-emphasised by myself, that the Government will regularly review the effectiveness of the clause to ensure that there is no increase in personation or multiple voting?

Mr. Howarth: Yes. I believe that I said earlier that the Home Office regularly reviews elections. It receives representations from political parties and elsewhere, and it will, as a matter of course, keep the effect of the clause and other parts of the Bill under review.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I give way for the last time.

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate that the Minister has the Committee's support. Will he add to the list of requests the question—to which there must be an answer—whether there is any spot-check process? If people knew that the

form, as submitted, might be subject to a check, the form might be submitted more honestly. Spot checks are carried out in the case of almost everything else in life, and would not be inappropriate in this case.

Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, returning officers have a wide discretion. I am sure that, where there are grounds for suspicion, they will devise whatever checks are necessary. I am sure that any emerging pattern would be checked. However, obviously, the matter needs, and will continue to receive, attention.
I hope that, on the basis of the assurances that have been given, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel it appropriate to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Evans: The debate has been useful.
I have said how depressing it is to walk along Victoria street at night and see the rough sleepers, especially given the weather this winter. We talk about the flu epidemic. It must be acutely depressing to sleep in a shop doorway in London in the present conditions—a dreadful existence.
I heard what the Prime Minister said before Christmas about continuing the excellent work that was started under the Conservative Government with the rough sleepers initiative; I support that wholly and fully. I am not saying that, even if we could double the amount of money spent, no one would sleep rough, but I believe that we must do more to help those who are sleeping rough. If that entails a multi-agency approach—as I believe that it does—that would be welcomed by every Member of the House.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend did not want to make a party political point. I disagree with him. Is he aware that Shelter says not only that 2,000 people are sleeping rough in central London, but that, sadly, that figure is now increasing?

Mr. Evans: I shall not make a party political point because I want to emphasise what we are trying to do to help rough sleepers. I am not saying that, even if the amount spent were doubled, there would not still be a problem, especially in London.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke to amendment No. 113. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) also spoke.
The hon. Member for Upminster said that he needed to be convinced that we were not placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of homeless people who wanted to register to vote. I hope that the addition of the two lines below paragraph (f) of amendment No. 13, which allow other documentation to be accepted as sufficient evidence, will give him and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome confidence that we are not seeking to set up obstacles that would obstruct people from registering. That is not what the Bill or the amendment are about. We are trying to prevent personation and fraud.
We accept that personation goes on at election times even though we do not know the extent to which it occurs. If we give people the opportunity to register more than once, those that personate may try to do so. We want to close a loophole before it comes into being. We want to


make it easier for people to vote, but we do not want to make it easier for them to register fraudulently so that they can vote more than once.
Even if this provision allows 1,500 to 2,000 people to register, I do not know what percentage of them would use their ability to make a declaration of locality. It is not sufficient just to have that option available. We must ensure that people are able to use it. That means that social services, the Churches, which do a lot of good work, those who run soup kitchens and others who talk on a nightly basis with the homeless could become involved in the education process to encourage people to register and to tell them where to vote. Shelter and several other charities could also be used. Legislating so that the homeless are able to vote does not necessarily mean that one extra person will turn up at a local authority to register. People must encourage and educate them about what we are doing.
The charities, the police and the vicars and priests who regularly talk to homeless people would be able to provide the documentary evidence that someone sleeps in a part of London, be that outside McDonald's or round the back of the Army and Navy. For the first time, the Bill will allow people to use such places as an address if it is the only address that they have.
I hope that the amendment will reassure the Minister that we are not introducing any obstacles into the Bill. He talked about the integrity of the ballot box being important and that is right. The dignity of the homeless in being able to vote is also important. What we are trying to do would enable us to bring both aims together and to enfranchise those people who are currently unable to vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 38, at end insert—
provided that, in determining this, no account shall be taken of time which he spends in any place in the course of employment or of the provision of services for pecuniary reward".
The amendment would ensure that where an elector is registered is based on where that person lives as opposed to where that person works. I do not believe that the Government intend the Bill to allow people to try to register where they work instead of where they live, but that point is not made clear. The amendment would clarify any confusion.
We tabled the amendment because some people work in different parts of the country at different times of the year. For example, transient and holiday workers regularly go fruit picking or hop picking for a short period of the year, but that could be just before a general election takes place. The Minister must say whether it is the Bill's intention that those who go fruit picking in different parts of the country could use the Bill so that they do not need to provide the address at which they live, but the address at which they stay for two or three months. The amendment would stop that happening.
There are many seasonal workers in the north-west, which is where my constituency is. Many people work seasonally in the tourist industry in Ribble Valley. Blackpool is not too far away. The Minister will have visited it for the Labour party conference. Speaking as a

north-west Member of Parliament, I hope that it will not be too long before the Labour party returns to Blackpool. He will know from visiting Blackpool and other resorts that many people work seasonally in what passes for summer in our country, so they work in a resort for only a short period.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he, like me, falls into that trap? No doubt he has a home in his constituency; he may have a home in another part of the country, and he will have a home in London. Which one should he register at and vote from? Does he register for local government purposes in all three places, as one can, and vote occasionally or by postal vote, and choose one place to vote in general elections? That needs to be clarified.

Mr. Evans: Obviously, Members of Parliament come into that category. Students do too, because their parents may include them on the registration form at home, while the students may register themselves at university. Someone in a hall of residence may register all the students there.
To give another example, when I was a student I lived in Swansea but I came to London for short periods to work for Manpower, an agency. I could have considered that the constituency in London was more marginal and decided to register there.
My point is that the Bill will make it easier to register to vote. In the main, Members of Parliament have a home here and in their constituency, but seasonal workers may well live in a hostel or hotel accommodation. I simply lived with my brother in London when I worked here. Surely it is not the Bill's intention that people working in London for a few days a week over a short period should be able to register at home and in London. The Bill will make that easier. Is that what the Minister wants? I want him to clarify the position.
We have to recognise that we have a changing work force who are far more mobile. People can work all over the country for short periods. They seek work wherever they can find it. I hope that the Minister will consider our amendment carefully. There is nothing malicious in it. We are sincere about it, but we hope that he can assure us that there is no intention that people should be able to pick and choose where they vote and take advantage of the opportunity to register in a marginal constituency rather than where they live most of the time.

Mr. Bermingham: I shall be brief because my voice is not at its best tonight. I rather liked amendment No. 14, which was tabled by the Opposition, and I am sad that it was not called because it would have tidied up an anomaly in the current voting system.
I have a flat in London and I can register to vote there, and I have a home in Birmingham and I can register there, but the returning officer in London would not know that I was registered in Birmingham. I can register in my constituency. Where do I vote in an election? Do I vote for myself in my constituency or do I use my postal vote in—

The Chairman: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him, but for his clarification


and that of other hon. Members, I point out that amendment No. 14 was selected and debated in a group headed by amendment No. 30 on 15 December.

Mr. Bermingham: I accept that. I was aware that the amendment had been debated, but I rather liked it. As always I hope that I pick my words with great care and accuracy. If my memory serves me correctly, the amendment was not put to the vote on 15 December.
Now that I finally have the Minister's ear, I emphasise that were he, in thinking of the overall breadth of the Bill, to think back to 15 December—I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for aiding me in reminding him—he would see the wisdom of amendment No. 14 when coupled with amendment No. 15. Effectively, they would require people to state on their annual return at the beginning of October where else they had registered. Returning officers would then know whether people had more than one eligible address, and at an election it would be simple to check—to return to the previous debate—whether there had been multiple voting.
It is a simple little matter. Even if amendment No. 15 is not pressed to a vote, I hope that the Minister will take on board its spirit because it tidies up a loophole—provided that it is coupled with amendment No. 14, which was debated on 15 December. I am grateful for your assistance, Sir Alan, which I hope has helped the force of my case. Sometimes one gets an opportunity to tidy up a little, if one marries two things together. It is useful democracy, is it not?

Mr. Fabricant: I rise briefly to support amendment No.15—not to talk about the role of Members of Parliament and where they may or may not live, but to say that, as the amendment is particularly concerned that there should be no determination of the amount of time that someone might spend
in any place in the course of employment or of the provision of services for pecuniary rewards",
it has a special relevance to the internet age in which we live.
More and more people find that they can work from several different locations—not only in their offices but from their homes, in hotel rooms or abroad—while maintaining direct contact with their companies by placing and fulfilling orders and completing reports through the internet. The amendment is particularly useful, recognising the changes in work patterns. The Government would be ill advised to ignore it.
We have already had some debate on whether one ought to be at a place of residence on the evening of 10 October to determine one's entitlement to vote. The amendment would ensure that people not resident at that time, but working elsewhere, wherever that might be, were still able to vote in a particular area.
The Government should take heed of the amendment; they would be unwise to ignore it. If they did so, they would be the party not of the 21st century but of the 20th century—although, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said much earlier, we are technically still in the 20th century. On that confusing note, I rest my case.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I, too, was confused—but about whether the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome

(Mr. Heath) was about to introduce his views into the debate. As it appears he is not, and since he has not been listening for the past few minutes, perhaps we may proceed.
I believe that all hon. Members agree that homeless people have the same basic rights as us to register as electors and to vote. The fact that they are homeless does not mean that they should be excluded from the democratic process. The only point at issue is how we can make it as easy and proper as possible for homeless people to register, bearing in mind their particular circumstances, while, at the same time, doing nothing to make it easier to register fraudulently.
The solution that we have come up with is the declaration of local connection. The new section 7B of the Representation of the People Act 1983 will allow a homeless person to register in respect of a relevant address. That address will be a place where he commonly spends a substantial part of his time. We think that that is the right approach. A homeless person will be required to indicate where he spends much of his time, which is likely to be the place with which he has the closest connection. It may, for example, be a hostel or even a shop doorway where he sleeps. It may equally be the place where he spends the bulk of his waking hours. That could be a day centre for the homeless, but it could be a place where he is employed or where he routinely has a patch where he sells The Big Issue, for example. If such a place is the place with which the person concerned feels that he has the closest connection, we should not prevent it from being used for registration purposes, which is the purpose behind the amendment.
We are not talking about a place where a person goes to pick fruit or hops, or for his holidays. He or she needs to spend a substantial amount of time in the place. Seasonal workers are not generally considered to be homeless and they must register at their residence. The amendment applies only to the homeless.
I remind the Committee of the rules governing qualification for election as a local councillor. To be elected to a local authority, a person must live in or own property in the authority area, or must work there. The principle that one can establish a link with an area through employment is already well established and there is no reason why it should not apply to the homeless.

Mr. Fabricant: If someone is working for a company but is rarely based at the company—let us say that he is working for the company by using an internet link, which is frequently the case—would that qualify that person to stand for election to the local council in that area or, in the instance of the Bill, would it qualify him to have voting rights in that area?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks me to interpret as a court or a returning officer the words that appear in the Bill. That interpretation is best left to a returning officer or to the court rather than to a Minister. Let me ensure that I duck the question obviously and definitely.
Electoral registration has been largely based on residence. In many ways, that is the best principle. It cannot apply in exactly the same form to the homeless, but by allowing them to register in respect of the place with which they have a close connection we are making the minimum necessary modification to the underlying


principle. If that place happens to be one where the homeless person is employed or provides a service for reward, so be it. We should not force homeless persons to register in respect of some other place with which they have a less well-defined connection, or where they spend less of their time.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made some important points about multiple registration. To some extent, his comments have been dealt with in previous debates. However, I listened with great interest to his arguments and I shall continue to bear them in mind as we progress with the Bill.
I hope that in the light of my response the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the contributions of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can at least support the thrust of the amendment.
I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response. I know that we are talking about the homeless, and he may feel that there will be no abuse. We wanted him to say that the Bill was never intended to be used in a way that would lead to abuse. Our purpose was to close any loopholes that might possibly open up.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman can accept that the Bill was never intended to be used in a way that would lead to abuse. In the nature of things, we would not intend that to be the case.

9 pm

Mr. Evans: I am sure that that was never the intention, but if we can improve the Bill—which is what Committee stages are all about—we should take every opportunity to do so, and that is what our amendment seeks. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the amendment when he reflects on the debate, particularly the contribution from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. We should make it as easy as possible for the homeless to register to vote while ensuring that the system is not open to abuse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
and the declarant's previous address".
This part of the clause deals with the situation in Northern Ireland, and it is for that reason that I have tabled this short amendment. I tabled another amendment which seems not to have been selected, but perhaps, like the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I have been caught flat-footed; it may have been discussed before the House rose for the Christmas recess.
This is a probing amendment to find out what efforts the Government are making to prevent fraud. Northern Ireland has a land frontier, and there is the danger of people floating across the frontier for electoral purposes into constituencies and local government areas where a

dozen, 50 or 100 votes could make an enormous difference, such as changing a council's political complexion or making or breaking a Member of Parliament. Reference was made to that in the debates on the first group of amendments discussed earlier.
If the declarant has been in Northern Ireland for the previous three months, he probably has an address somewhere. If he has not had an address in the previous three months, he must have had an address just prior to that either in Northern Ireland, elsewhere in the United Kingdom or in the Irish Republic. I am trying to establish some method by which we can identify the individual, where he came from and whether he is genuine or part of a concerted effort deliberately to defraud or undermine the electoral system.
The Minister has made it perfectly clear that he is determined that electoral fraud shall not happen. I share that aim. My constituents and my colleagues in Northern Ireland have good reasons for sharing it. The present position in Northern Ireland is that a person must have lived in an electoral or council area or in a constituency for three months before 15 September, which is the qualifying date to prove that the individual has a genuine interest in the area, rather than October as in Great Britain.
We are now changing that and moving to a system of rolling registration. That has considerable implications in the Province which do not prevail elsewhere. I know that the Minister would not want to open the door to the possibility of widespread and carefully conceived electoral fraud, turning electoral takeover of certain areas from an illegal into a legal activity. The changes made in the Bill certainly make electoral fraud easy.
I have a fundamental problem with the Bill. It opens a barn door to fraud under certain circumstances. It makes it easy for people to allege that they are moving from one constituency to another. The Minister should consider this item carefully. I can see reasons why the words in the amendment should not be added to this subsection—make no mistake about that—but there are also good reasons for doing so. The amendment would provide a method of tracing an individual and determining whether he is engaged in fraud or is genuine and has a right to be on the electoral register. I am trying to close that loophole before it is too wide open. I should like the Minister to tell me why these words should not be added to the Bill and what the Government's objections to them are.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The position in Northern Ireland is, in many respects, similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, but in other respects it is different. The situation in Northern Ireland has been difficult for some decades, and in the past it has been alleged that problems have arisen in its electoral system that have been less evident elsewhere in the UK.
I do not think that the amendment is necessary. It would make those wishing to register as electors in Northern Ireland sign a declaration of local connection, a requirement that would not apply to those seeking to register in other parts of the United Kingdom. If we are to impose extra requirements, we need substantial evidence that a problem is likely to arise.
I do not deny that, given the history of Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) may have valid reasons for expressing his concerns, but, as he said, a special requirement already


applies in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland—but not in other parts of the United Kingdom—a person cannot be registered unless he has resided in the Province for the previous three months. The proposed new section 4(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983—which clause 1(2) of this Bill will insert—replicates that requirement by providing that no one may register in Northern Ireland unless he has been resident there for the entire period of three months before the date of registration on the rolling register. Clause 6(4)(b) makes equivalent provision for homeless persons seeking to register in respect of a declaration of local connection.
I see no reason to impose any additional requirements at this stage. I certainly do not see why people in Northern Ireland who register by means of declarations of local connection should be required to provide information over and above that provided by other electors. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman, however. The Government do not want the system to be opened up to widespread fraud. They are aware that there may well be concerns in Northern Ireland, and are anxious not to seem unduly complacent. After every election—including general elections—the way in which the election was conducted will be monitored, and the electoral rules will be reviewed to ensure that they are not being abused.
We will certainly listen to the views of the hon. Gentleman and his party—and others in Northern Ireland—if, once the Bill has been enacted, evidence is submitted that an abuse has occurred. We shall then be prepared to consider ways of dealing with the problem.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have some concerns, given the history of Northern Ireland. We do not think that the arrangements there need to be exactly the same as those in other parts of the United Kingdom, but we do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on those seeking to vote in Northern Ireland. It is a question of getting the balance right. I think that we have got the balance right in the Bill and that we do not need the amendment. However, if evidence were subsequently produced suggesting that problems were starting to occur, we would examine it and consider how to deal with the problems.
I hope that, following my reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am willing to withdraw the amendment, but I still have a sneaking concern. If there is fraud and some people lose their seats at an election, it will not be much comfort to them to say that we will correct the problem before the next election, especially if the complexion of the council has changed. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. We have deep concerns— and there are real reasons for them because we have a land frontier.
As the Minister knows, I have often, or at least on a number of occasions, taken part in the post mortem in the Home Office after elections. The reality is that it is almost impossible to catch people who practise deceit in electoral matters, or are involved in personation, and prove it.

Mr. O'Brien: Let me perhaps give the hon. Gentleman a little more reassurance. We need not necessarily wait for an election. If it became clear—remember, the provision is to do with homeless persons—that suddenly a large number of people were claiming to be homeless,

to have a local connection, and to have been there for three months, and many of those so-called homeless people were not known in the area, the returning officer would undoubtedly become suspicious in an area such as Northern Ireland because homeless people tend to become known. Therefore, the returning officer could at that point alert the authorities of that potential problem before the election took place.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful for that explanation. One of the ways in which the returning officers, or electoral officers as we call them in Northern Ireland, could increase their knowledge would be by asking the Housing Executive how many homeless people were applying for homes. People will start to look for a house if they are genuinely homeless. If they are not genuine, they will not be looking for such dwellings. Bearing that in mind—I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 14, at end insert—
(7A) If a person knowingly makes a declaration of local connection at a time when there is in existence another declaration of local connection which he has made and which has not been cancelled or rendered void, he is guilty of an offence.
(7B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7A) of this section is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale".

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 56, 57, 62 and 63.

Mr. Evans: As we can see from some of the Government amendments, the Government have come a long way in recognising some of the problems that we have detected in the Bill. It is only fair to say that we welcome that. We have gone a little further in making it an offence to register local connection in more than one place.
We are of the view that as many homeless people as possible should be encouraged to take the opportunity to register to vote. For some of them, it may be the first time that they have ever registered to vote. Just because they do not have the dignity of a roof over their heads does not mean that they should not be allowed to put a vote to their voice. Therefore, we welcome the thrust of the measure.
We have heard about some close constituency results and overseas electors. Some seats were decided by a small group of people; the majority was small. The 1992 Vale of Glamorgan election has been mentioned—I think that the majority was 19, a small number. As we know, some elections have been decided by even less, such as the Winchester election, which was decided by two votes. There have been other elections where the majority was in single figures.
Therefore, personation in relation to local connection could be a real problem. It could decide elections. We have to accept that that is true. We are trying—I hope that the Government accept that it is exactly what we are trying to do—to encourage homeless people to register


to vote, but, at the same time, ensure that we do not activate people who are not homeless, but who might use the flexibility in the Bill to start to register and to make more than one local connection. That is the last thing that we want to happen.
9.15 pm
We know that constituencies differ—my constituency, for example, is large. As we heard from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), in some areas it is enormously difficult for some people to register and vote. Accordingly, provisions in the Bill will make it easier for people to vote by post. I have enormous reservations, however, about the potential for fraud that we shall be building into the system, and believe that an offence of local declaration might prove to be useful.
The potential for fraud will be bad enough in general elections, but it might also be a problem in by-elections— with which I shall deal specifically when I speak to a subsequent clause. In general elections, there could be an enormous impact if local connections are declared in more than one area. Although I concede entirely that the number of homeless people who would try to abuse the system that we are establishing is small, those who might be considered as part of the Swampy factor—those who usually protest in other ways—might abuse both the system and the flexibility for homeless people that we are including in the Bill.
I believe that, in some constituencies, the ability to make a local declaration will cause problems with those who are not homeless, but who may register under the novel provisions of clause 6. Moreover, as things stand, it would not be an offence for them to make such a declaration. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that we plug the legislative loophole to ensure that those who make local declarations are allowed to do so only once and that we do not open the floodgates to a protest movement of those who will suddenly be able to make local declarations.
Currently, electoral registers across the country are not correlated. In 10 years, the situation may change and local registration officers may be able to check with one another. Today, I spoke to my electoral registration officer and asked her what would happen if I not only remained registered at the house that I left last year, but also registered in my new village. She said that their computer software would show my name appearing twice, and that they would investigate the double registration and remove one of the entries.
The duplication of my name would have occurred in a single constituency. I think that it is very unlikely that anyone would make more than one local declaration in the same constituency, as electoral officers would get wise to such attempts and identify possible problems. If such attempts—or even concerted campaigns—were made over a much wider area, however, I am not sure that they would be detected. We should therefore include in the Bill a provision to ensure that if such declarations are made and detected—detection is a separate issue—they will constitute an offence, possibly a criminal offence, for which people are liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
We should like the Minister carefully to consider amendment No. 16. We realise that the Government's amendments in this group go some way in tightening the legislation, but we ask him to go one stage further.

Mr. Linton: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a couple of minutes, but I cannot let this moment pass without pointing out the official Opposition's inconsistency. Before Christmas, Opposition Front Benchers very strenuously opposed amendments to stop dual registration that were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and me. The hon. Gentleman is now opposing dual registration for homeless people, after defending dual registration for rich people who are registered both at a country house and a town house. He raises the principle of dual registration in a way that applies not only to the homeless, but to everybody. The other categories who enjoy it are people with second homes, Members of Parliament and students. That gives many Members personal experience of—if not interest in—the subject.
The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and myself were almost exactly the same as those being moved now by the hon. Gentleman, if one substituted the word "declaration" of local interest for "registration".

Mr. Evans: We have asked for some form of identification to be made for local declarations, but that has not been accepted fully. It will be easier to register than ever before. When a campaign starts, it will be so much harder to detect where this is happening and close it down. It will still be an offence to vote in a general election in more than one constituency but, in respect of registration and a campaign by a group—I am not picking on the homeless, who I do not think will do this—people may abuse the system.

Mr. Linton: The point is that we want a registration system that is unlikely to be abused. The hon. Gentleman referred to moving within his constituency, but problems arise because there is no correlation between moving from one place and moving to another. We have advocated a system where there was no dual registration, and that would not stop Members of Parliament or students having a choice about where they voted. They could say that they were resident in one constituency or the other. However, it would stop them being registered in both places at the same time. That has the enormous benefit that when one moves one's registration for parliamentary purposes—this would not apply to local election registration—one moves away from one constituency to another. One transfers the registration, rather than simply starting a new one while probably forgetting to cancel the old one.
That is the enormous advantage of an end to dual registration. It would not be against the interests of those who reside in two places, who would always have a choice. It would ensure that the electoral registration process is one of registering in one place and transferring to another. That means that many of the 4 million people who are on the register but should not be, and the 7 million who should be but are not, would be eliminated by a basic reform to the system to prevent dual registration for parliamentary elections—not only for the homeless, but for everybody.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are serious about stopping dual registration,


every elector in the country should have a unique number attached to his name, whether it is his national insurance number or, even better, his medical card number, which the computers could then throw up if someone registered in more than one place?

Mr. Linton: I hope to come to that point in the debate on the next amendment.

Mr. David Heath: Clearly, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is expressing a point of interest to the Committee. I have some sympathy with his point, as I have with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), with whom I agree about single rather than dual registration. As far as possible, I believe that the same rules should apply to every class of elector, rather than having distinctive arrangements.
I do not believe that the amendment would cover what is needed, nor do I think that the Government have yet got it right. The criticism in both cases may be to do with the mechanism. The current proposition is that there should be a duty on the person registering to cancel any previous registration. We do not know exactly what cancellation means, and the duty could be very light or very onerous; we must discover that from the Minister.
The Minister clearly recognises that the wording was not right before, by virtue of the Government amendments, and especially No. 57, which would ensure that the same requirement applied to a declaration of local connection as to a normal registration.

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be difficult enough to get homeless people to register in the first place, let alone getting them to de-register when they move? That is why we must make absolutely certain that when they re-register they are asked specifically to declare whether they have registered anywhere else, so that their name can be removed from the other location.

Mr. Heath: That underlines my concerns about the arrangements proposed in the amendment. It seems to be an onerous duty that will be difficult for people to fulfil. One of the problems is the synchronicity: if the amendment were made, cancellation of the previous registration would have to occur before the declaration of local connection was made. That double process cannot be what the hon. Gentleman intended and I hope that it would not be implemented in that way.
Surely a cancellation is not what we need. The Government amendments make it clear that a previous registration by declaration of local connection falls when the person is re-registered in any way. We need a system that places a duty on the person not to cancel with the previous registration officer but simply to make the new registration officer aware that he or she was previously registered. The officer would then have the responsibility of ensuring that the other officer is made aware of the change. If we have that mechanism, we do not need to get too excited about the problem.
The hon. Gentleman has detected the fact that there is no clear duty or sanction to ensure that the applicant makes a previous registration known when re-registering, but the amendment does not quite answer the case.

Mr. Evans: The Minister referred to the problem in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of 16 December. He said:
In addition, the form for registering in this way will also need to include details of any current registrations so that, again, the registration officer can ensure that the person is deleted from the register in respect of a previous address.

Mr. Heath: That is very helpful. If we have a form designed in that way and there is a penalty for knowingly giving false information, the matter is dealt with. If the Minister can assure me that that is the case, even though it is not in the Bill, there is no longer a problem of dual registration and the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right. He quoted the letter that I sent and I hope that that provides him with sufficient reassurance. I can confirm that what I said in the letter was right, which it is always a pleasure to do.
As the Bill is currently drafted it does nothing to prevent a person from registering more than once as an elector using declarations of local connection. Because declarations of local connection are designed for use by those such as the homeless, mental patients and remand prisoners who are unable to establish residence in the normal way, that seems wrong and amendments Nos. 56 and 57 will prevent that.
I note the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley earlier, but overall, Members of Parliament receive an excellent service from the officers of the House and we have too little opportunity to pay tribute to them. Perhaps I should mention that the loophole that we seek to close was originally spotted by the eagle-eyed Oonagh Gay of the Library when she was preparing her excellent research paper on the Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to her for referring to the matter in her research paper so that we could deal with it.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 will make a similar change in respect of those who register by means of a service declaration. Those who register in the normal way and legitimately have more than one residence—I know that that includes many hon. Members—will not be prevented from registering in respect of each of them. I shall not revisit the debate that we had about dual registration, but I hope that, in the light of that reassurance and the indications I have given about how we intend to deal with the issue, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I invite the Committee to support amendments Nos. 56, 57, 62 and 63.
I do not go all the way with the hon. Gentleman on what he calls the Swampy factor, although it is something that we will wish to consider. I will discuss it with my officials and consider whether we will be able to deal with it in the other place if that turns out to be necessary. I am not convinced that it is as big a problem as the hon. Gentleman fears, but I will consider his constructive comments.

Mr. Evans: We have had another useful debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) for his contribution to it. I accept much of what he said about double registration. We have made a start in closing loopholes and, if clear abuses are taking place, we will


need to reconsider. I understand that students form the bulk of those who register twice—there are only 659 Members of Parliament—but it is an offence to vote more than once in a general election. I also understand that some people wish to vote in local elections that take place at different times in different areas. We may need to revisit the issue in five years' time, given the pace at which new technology is advancing.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The Government's amendments will do much to close the loophole. I am also grateful that he has undertaken to reconsider what I have called the Swampy factor—the fact that a politically motivated group of people may use the legislation to enfranchise people who currently cannot vote. It would be wrong for such people to be able to abuse the system for their own ends. If Home Office Ministers and officials study that matter and detect a problem, I hope that they will act, in another place, to close that loophole.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
(10) A declaration of local connection shall be of no effect if that declaration states an address which is an address within a constituency which is not represented by a Member of Parliament at the time when that declaration is received by the registration officer".
The amendment would offer further protection for the democratic process by ensuring that travelling voters could not target particular seats. I speak as one who bears the battle scars of two by-elections—in Pontypridd, where I came third, and in the safe Conservative seat of Ribble Valley, where I came second. The amendment would prevent groups of politically motivated people—who clearly would not belong to either the Conservative or the Labour parties—from inflicting the Swampy factor on elections.
Some protesters are prepared to stay underground or at the top of trees to make their point. It is naive to think that people motivated enough to do such things would not be motivated enough to travel around the country and make a local declaration in an area where a by-election was to be held.
I am rather disappointed that there are no representatives from Plaid Cymru in the Chamber tonight, as one of that party's seats has recently been vacated by the resignation of the hon. Member for Ceredigion. This important Bill tries to address the observed decline in voting by encouraging as many people as possible to vote. However, the Ceredigion by-election has been called for 3 February. It is doubly disappointing that about 3,800 young people—first-time voters, in the main—will not be able to vote on that date because they are registered on the new register that comes into force on 16 February.
The Ceredigion by-election will not be affected by the Bill, but other by-elections will be. When a seat is vacated because the Member of Parliament dies, several weeks normally pass before a by-election is held. That was what happened after the tragic death of Alan Clark, but, clearly, Plaid Cymru had its own reasons for acting quickly in the case of Ceredigion.
The gap of several weeks that normally occurs gives ample opportunity for the Swampy factor to come into play. People can move around the country and make local declarations in the constituency involved. That may not be very important in constituencies where one party enjoys a large majority, but we must ensure that the Bill closes down any abuses that might exist, and that it opens no fresh possibilities for abuse. Where a majority runs into only three or four figures, politically motivated people could travel around the country to where by-elections are to be called and could actually decide the results.
We are trying to be realistic about abuses of the system. Because there will be a rolling register and because we are bending over backwards to enable people to register to vote as quickly as possible—more quickly than ever before—no one can say that we are closing the stable door to prevent genuine and legitimate voters from voting. However, the amendment would ensure that, once a seat was vacated, normally because of the death of a Member of Parliament, people could not turn up, make declarations of their location and try to abuse the system.
I hope that the Minister can assure all hon. Members that the Government are taking the situation seriously and that, if they are not prepared to accept our amendment, they will introduce one to close that loophole.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There is a danger that this might become a discussion between by-election groupies or people who have been through the by-election process. All I can say to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that some of us have a better score than he has.

Mr. Evans: Everybody has.

Mr. Hughes: I was trying to be gentle, but as the hon. Gentleman has owned up so generously, I thank him very much.
We are sympathetic to the amendment. It is important not to allow a sudden influx of people into an area once a by-election has been called. The electorate should be fixed on the day that the by-election is called. We share the concern and disappointment expressed about the by-election in Ceredigion. It has an intelligent electorate and there is often a very high turn-out. Because of the politics in the area, contests are close, and the seat has changed parties often since the last war. Yet the next generation of people who want to vote will be deprived of the chance to do so. As someone with family in Ceredigion, who are on the electoral register and will—I assume and hope—be voting, I share that concern. Plaid Cymru has let those people down and let down the case for wider electoral reform.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the proposal. Our electoral systems must not allow elections to be rigged by people suddenly moving in and signing on. The amendment is one way of ensuring that. The wording may not be perfect, but I hope that some comfort will be given to the proposition, and that we can deal with the problem before the Bill ends its passage through Parliament.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The amendment presents some interesting questions and some difficulties. I would be reluctant to create a situation in which homeless people


were treated differently from those who could use the rolling registration scheme. The rolling register will enable people to register to vote when a vacancy occurs if they are not homeless—if they are registering other than by means of a local connection.
The amendment would stop those who register by means of a declaration of local connection from doing so where a vacancy has arisen. They would therefore be treated differently from those who could otherwise register under the rolling registration scheme. I am reluctant to do that. However, I listened with care to the points made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The reference to the Swampy factor can be overdone; I would not want to raise a spectre to haunt the whole idea. That would not be realistic. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, getting homeless people to register will be difficult in any event. At the same time, we want to ensure that we provide every encouragement and do not seek to disfranchise people by reason of their homelessness.
9.45 pm
We need to ensure that proper systems are in place to deal with those who seek to register for improper reasons. However, we must strike a balance to ensure that there is a level playing field. I have heard what has been said and shall discuss the issue with officials to see whether there may be some way to deal with it. The amendment is not the way to do that. It would create discrimination against people who were homeless and who sought to register by way of a declaration of local connection. I do not like that proposal, but I do not deny that there is an outside possibility that people may seek to register for a by-election. I shall consider the matter with more care and write to the hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and will happily copy the correspondence to any other hon. Member who indicates an interest to me when the debate is over.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for what the Minister has said and for the support of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It is sad, as he said, that people who should vote for the first time in the Ceredigion by-election will be denied their opportunity for up to two years. They will remember well who denied them their vote in 2000.
I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. The Opposition do not want to set up some demarcation that picks on the homeless and no one else. However, when the Minister reconsiders the point, will he look into the possible problems with by-elections, particularly those that take place several weeks after a vacancy occurs? There is an opportunity for abuse of the system, but it could easily be prevented. Matters are different when people move house. People are not likely to go so far as to spend perhaps £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 to try to abuse the system and get a vote, but a local declaration costs nothing. It would be far easier for people to abuse the system in that way than it would in any other. I am reassured by what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 56, in page 9, line 38, leave out first "any" and insert "another".
No. 57, in page 9, line 39, leave out "otherwise than" and insert ", whether or not".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. David Heath: I do not want to detain the Committee for long. As the Minister gave his assurances on amendment No. 17, he said that the form of declaration would include a requirement that a person should declare whether he or she were already registered by virtue of a declaration of local connection elsewhere. Does he intend to table an amendment to clause 6 in order to amend section 7B(3) of the 1983 Act, where the contents of a declaration of local connection are specified? If a further mandatory requirement for information is to be placed on any person seeking to register, it seems extraordinary that it should not appear in legislation, and it would be more convenient if it did.

Mr. O'Brien: We do not need to include that in the Bill—it would simply be a matter of the returning officer having prescribed forms, which would, no doubt, be dealt with in the normal way under electoral registration procedures. Those forms would simply declare what information was required. We do not need to cover that in the Bill; there are other ways in which to do it. However, it is correct that the form would ask for the provision of that information.

Mr. William Ross: We have held an interesting and quite lengthy debate on the clause and its several amendments. There is one point in the clause that caught my eye and to which I draw the Minister's attention. Subsection (6) states:
"No declaration of local connection shall be specially made by a person for the purposes of local government elections".
How on earth are we to know whether people are making their declaration for that or for some other purpose? If they make a declaration for parliamentary elections, they will be able to vote in local elections anyway.

Mr. O'Brien: The aim is to ensure that people are making a declaration that they have a local connection. They would then be included on the electoral register and would be able to vote in local or national elections, as appropriate, if they were qualified to do so. I do not think that we need to take the matter any further. However, if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that answer, perhaps the best way to proceed would be for me to consider his point in detail and to write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

SERVICE DECLARATIONS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we will discuss amendment No. 105, in schedule 1, page 22, line 37, leave out "12 months" and insert "service".

Mr. William Ross: Over the years that I acted as an election agent, looking after the interests of my party in


relation to electoral registration, I always had difficulty with people serving in the armed forces and with the service declaration. Sometimes, those involved failed to submit the declaration—they failed to claim their place on the electoral register. Sometimes, they told me that they had difficulty in obtaining the necessary form from their officers. In a small way, that has been a bone of contention for many years—although it is, no doubt, an important enough matter to those who are affected by it.
The amendment would remove the reference to the 12-month period and would replace it with a reference to the end of service in the armed forces. If that were done, it would resolve the difficulties that have been experienced by some soldiers, sailors and airmen over the years. It would then be a simple matter for the military authorities to inform the electoral officer as soon as an individual had left the services. The amendment is an effort to make the matter simpler for all concerned.
Will the Minister consider my proposal? It may well be that other ancillary amendments would be necessary. I have not considered the matter in enough detail to be certain of that. If the Minister would consider my proposal, it would be a step forward; it would certainly make life easier for those serving in the armed forces who want to remain registered at their homes. Will the Minister give me his views on the matter, and tell me whether he will consider the point?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) makes a valid point to which the Minister will respond. My question relates to clause 7 rather than to the amendment. For as long as I can remember, there has always been the service declaration for people in the services who live abroad. I have never been aware that other people who are abroad on Government service—such as civil servants, foreign press officials and diplomatic officials—may have a similar method of registration.
My question to the Minister—I appreciate that it is against the backdrop of overseas voter provision—is whether he will place on the record which categories of Government employees, in addition to members of the armed services, can avail themselves of the declaration possibility, irrespective of the proposed amendment that the Bill will make to current law. It would help if he clarified that.

Mr. Fabricant: I welcome clause 7. It abolishes a discriminatory element that previously existed in the Representation of the People Act 1983.
The service declaration was introduced by the Conservative Government to make it easier for people who had worked in the armed services to vote when they were overseas, but obviously, with the provisions for overseas registration, that is no longer necessary. I note that those with a service declaration will still be able to use it. However, perhaps the Minister will confirm that they will be given the additional option of registering in the same way as other voters.
Interestingly, had amendment No. 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), passed through the House—in the event, the right hon. Gentleman withdrew it—people serving overseas in the armed forces may well have had their right to vote removed. Although the right hon. Gentleman denied that that was the case, many hon. Members felt that the provisions of his amendment would have disfranchised those people serving the country. That would have been completely wrong.
As the clause removes an element of discrimination, I welcome it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment No. 105, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), would raise some problems. Let me first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes); that will lead me on to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
There are effectively two groups of people who can make service declarations—members of the armed forces and members of the diplomatic service, together with British Council employees based overseas. Service declarations made by diplomats last 12 months; the Bill does nothing to change that. However, declarations made by members of the armed forces currently last indefinitely and expire only when the person concerned is no longer eligible—the moment when they leave the forces.
Although that may sound a desirable state of affairs that ensures that service personnel remain on the electoral register, it has perverse effects. Members of the armed forces generally make a service declaration when they enlist. As that is often at the age of 18, they usually register in respect of their parents' address, but thereafter no one reminds them as a matter of course that they are registered, or that their service declaration may need to be updated. We do not want to place on the armed forces the extra burdens of working out where people are registered and dealing with all those issues.
Service declarations may be in force for many years after they are made. The service man's parents may long since have died or moved house, but he may still be registered in respect of his former address. Even more absurdly, when he is in this country, he may live, with his spouse and children, in a property that he owns, but because he has forgotten that long ago he made a service declaration, he is still registered in respect of the address that he left when he was 18.
We do not believe that that is right. Nor is it satisfactory that, uniquely among electors, members of the armed forces are not given an annual reminder to renew their registration and ensure that it properly reflects their circumstances. Accordingly, the Bill will bring service personnel's service declarations into line with other service declarations by causing them to last for a year. Registration officers will, of course, remind those registered in this way that their declarations—
It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Committee report progress.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Mike Hall]
Question agreed to.
Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I was outlining our procedure for service declarations. We want to ensure that those registered are able to vote, but that that should not be an indefinite right bearing in mind that their circumstances may change. Registration officers will remind those registered that their declarations are about to expire and offer them the opportunity to renew them.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister telling us that, from now on, registration officers will write to service personnel at their home addresses where they are registered, so that they will have the opportunity of renewing their place on the electoral register?

Mr. O'Brien: That is indeed the case. Members will want to be reassured that the change has been made with the agreement of the services, whom we consulted on the matter. The reminder that will go to service personnel that they should continue to renew each year their right to vote is worthwhile in citizenship terms and will provide the assurance that we shall not have completely out-of-date registers. That is a worthwhile change that the Committee should support. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
I also invite the Committee to agree that clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. One of the Bill's key purposes is to make it easier for people to register as electors. That is true for all electors, but especially for service personnel among whom registration rates have traditionally been low. At present, those with a service qualification— members of the armed forces, diplomats and certain other public servants posted overseas—can register only by means of a service declaration even if they are resident for the time being in this country.
The working party recommended that this restriction should be removed and the clause will achieve that. It will introduce much greater flexibility into the system. Those with service qualifications will still be entitled to register by means of a service declaration, but the clause will give them the additional option of registering in the same way as other voters if they satisfy the residence criteria, or as overseas voters, bearing in mind the discussions that we have had and may well have about such voters. There is no reason why those with a service qualification should be forced to register in a particularly burdensome way when they do not wish to do so. Again, the services support this change.
We hope that by removing that requirement, we will increase registration rates among service people. I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

REGISTRATION: AMENDMENTS OF 1983 ACT

Mr. Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 18, line 24, at end insert—
(2A) The requirement at subsection (2)(a) above for the inclusion of the name of the person to be registered shall not apply where, in the opinion of the registration officer, inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person.".
The amendment would allow electoral registration officers to register certain voters anonymously if it is considered that publication of their addresses would render them liable to danger. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that this is not the junk-mail amendment whereby people can opt to keep their names off the edited version of the register so that they are not inundated with junk mail. This might be better described as the battered wife or Jill Dando amendment. It would allow the names of vulnerable voters to be left off the register so that they could not be traced by a stalker, a violent ex-spouse or a vengeful ex-prisoner, but would retain their entitlement to vote.

Mr. Fabricant: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks and can see some force behind his argument, but who would determine whether someone is at risk? Would it be the voter concerned, the police, or someone else?

Mr. Linton: I thought that it was becoming clear that with this amendment, the electoral registration officer could decide to register certain voters anonymously. It is quite different from the amendment to clause 9 under which the voter could opt to be excluded from an edited version of the register. I do not want to anticipate the debate on clause 9, but that amendment concerns the balance of convenience between avoiding the junk mail that people receive if they are on the register and the credit that they may not be able to get if they are not on it.
This amendment is about much more than a balance of convenience; it may be a matter of life or death. It embodies one of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report in September 1998. I urge the Minister and the Committee to give it serious consideration.

Mr. Grieve: I do not know how much detail the hon. Gentleman can go into about how the system would work. If the system would leave blanks on the register so that it would be noticeable that certain properties were not registered, would not that in itself alert people who consult the register to the fact that there is an anomaly? How would the system work in respect of the person concerned voting on polling day?

Mr. Linton: During our evidence sessions, the Home Affairs Committee heard that there are several categories of people whose safety can be put at risk if their name appears on the electoral register. That certainly includes battered wives, but also people in occupations that make them vulnerable to attack. Prison warders and police officers are two examples. Not everybody in those categories would need anonymity, but there may be individual cases in which it is required. Another example


is people who have been victims of stalking or other forms of obsessional behaviour, particularly where there has been police surveillance or protection.
We do not recommend that the voter should be able to opt to go ex-register in the same way that one can go ex-directory in the telephone system because we want this provision to be used only in exceptional circumstances. We do not want it to be used for the wrong reasons, such as to avoid tax or jury service.
At the moment, a few vulnerable people keep their name off the electoral register. That is technically an offence and can attract a £1,000 fine, but as we heard earlier, nobody is ever prosecuted. We heard evidence from the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives that some electoral registration officers use devices to give anonymity to people who have good reason to avoid being identified.
One device that we know is used is allowing married women to use their maiden names to make it more difficult for people to trace them. Another is to allow them to use false names so that their husbands or ex-husbands cannot find them. Registration officers acknowledge that they may be at risk of challenge in using such devices; in other words, they do not know whether they are legal.
The Local Government Association suggested in its evidence to the Committee that people could be registered with names but no addresses under the "other voters" listed in every ward. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
Another suggestion came from the Association of Electoral Administrators. It argued that to put the names in the list of other voters that appears at the end of every ward register might in some circumstances give too much of a clue about where someone lives. A determined ex-husband might, especially in small wards, be able to trace a person once they know roughly where that person lives. Electoral administrators therefore argued that there should be a constituency-wide list of anonymous electors, which would make it much more difficult to track people down.
All organisations that represent registration officers ask for an explicit ability to register voters anonymously. They point out that that right existed under the community charge register. It was used by very few people, but it existed so that registers could not be used as a way of tracing people who might be in danger.
I suggest that registration officers should have the power both to list vulnerable voters in a list of anonymous voters at the end of the register if their addresses need protection, and to list them under a permanent polling number if their names need protection. Clearly, something must appear on the register, but the mere existence of a polling number rather than a name would not give anyone a clue to an address.
Such an argument of course implies that there should be yet another version of the electoral register. If clause 9 is agreed, there will be two versions: a full version of the register, which will be available for public inspection and to political parties, and an edited version, which will be sold commercially. The amendment implies a third version, which would be available only in the polling station to polling station officers for use in the election.
The version that would be available for public inspection and to political parties would omit the names of vulnerable people or list them as anonymous names to protect their identity.
The provision of a full unpublished register would allow the inclusion of two further pieces of information that are sometimes necessary to prevent fraud. Some fathers give their sons their own names, down even to their middle names, and the only way in which to distinguish them is by date of birth. An unpublished register would enable the inclusion of dates of birth, making—one hopes—each person's electoral registration unique. Unusual first names also make it difficult to distinguish the gender of the voter. Gender could also be included on such a register. That is an incidental advantage that the amendment might bring.
I am not arguing for more information on the public register, but for less. Irrespective of what happens to clause 9, I hope that the Minister and the Committee will agree to give electoral registration officers the right for which they have asked to protect the identity of vulnerable voters.
Considering a Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House often provides a better platform but creates a more formal atmosphere in which sometimes it is more difficult to persuade Ministers to take on board the force of an argument. However, I hope that Ministers will seriously consider the amendment, which is supported by the entire Home Affairs Committee and all organisations that are intimately involved in electoral registration.

Mr. Greenway: As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) knows from Second Reading, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Home Affairs Committee recommendation. I am not entirely clear whether his amendment provides a complete solution. In particular, the fact that other members of a person's family may be on the register creates a difficulty.
Even if clause 9 is agreed to in its present form—we hope that it will not be for many reasons—that will not be a solution. The full register will still be available in libraries. Stalkers, or former boy friends or husbands of women who have suffered serious domestic violence, can if they wish, and if they are as deranged as I have described, use whatever means are necessary to check where those women may be living.
I am not entirely clear how many people would qualify to come into the category that we are discussing. I suspect that there would be only a few. Those facing a problem would clearly be on an electoral register in terms of their right to vote but would not appear on it either by name or address.
We are all used to campaigning and canvassing on electoral registers that show gaps. About a quarter of the people on a register move from one address to another during a complete year. The absence of an address, let alone a name, from a register would not of itself spark any prospect of people thinking, "Somebody important must live there." Many addresses are missing from registers.

Mr. Barnes: The Bill will introduce a rolling register and a monthly update will take place.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He may be right in some respects. However,


I understand that the requirement to publish a register for public scrutiny is only an annual event and not something that would be done routinely each time there are changes in the register. The opportunity for someone to get hold of the register would be limited in using it to check which properties are not accompanied by a name and address.
I wish to send a message to the Minister that we support the concept of action being taken. The Select Committee's report pointed out that the issue had not yet been considered by the working party. Was the working party unable to consider the matter in any detail? If that is the position, perhaps we should ask the Minister to consider the matter and produce a proposal that we could all support. That would allow people who feel that they are vulnerable to physical assault as a result of others finding out where they are to make their position clear. As I said on Second Reading, there is still a general suspicion that the murderer of Jill Dando may have been a stalker. Her address may have been discovered through an entry in a register that was available for public scrutiny. That cannot be dismissed lightly as something of no significance. Indeed, it is extremely important.
An opt-out box was considered because of the potential threat of violence. However, there was no great body of evidence that that was a big issue for most people. It might have been for a few.
The fact that electoral registration officers are looking to the House and to the Government to find a solution should be the final encouragement to the Minister to do so. Given the likely date of Report, it may not be possible for the House to find a solution in the Bill. However, even with the short timetable that the Minister has in mind to get the Bill on the statute book so that the pilot schemes can go ahead, I urge him to try to find a mechanism that could be approved by the other place and that the House could then approve in a very short time.

Mr. Grieve: I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that I broadly support what he is trying to achieve. The purpose of the questions that I posed in my intervention was not to destroy his basic premise, but to raise a number of issues. My understanding is—it is clearly his view, too—that as matters stand there is some discretion. Various ideas have been worked out by electoral registration officers to deal with this problem informally, in the absence of anything specific on the statute. The worrying thing about the amendment is that, by clarifying what is allowed and what is not, it may fetter the discretion of electoral registration officers, so we must get it right.
I am concerned that if we had a system that put the names of known people at the bottom of an electoral register covering what in cities can be quite small wards, nothing would be better calculated to alert people to the fact that those people live in a small, circumscribed area. If a person were sufficiently unpleasant to want to unearth someone's address, such a system might provide the very pointers that the hon. Gentleman is trying to remove.
That is why I am concerned about the amendment, although I suspect that it has been tabled so that this matter can be aired. If it were passed and included in the Bill, it might be counterproductive. I favour the system under which people can use pseudonyms, which ensures that addresses are filled in. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made,

that blanks on the electoral register have never been a source of great consternation to those looking at it, but I see no reason why pseudonyms cannot be used in exceptional circumstances. They provide the anonymity that people are seeking, while ensuring that the register shows both the number of people and who is living in the area that it covers. I suggest to the Minister that that may be a better way forward, but I await with interest to hear what he has to say on this topic.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like other hon. Members, I understand the position that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has adopted. The Select Committee on Home Affairs and the electoral registration officers have asked us to look into this matter, so we must properly consider it. We need to go down this road very carefully. I want to flag up several problems that could arise if people are allowed to go off the electoral register.
First, if we are to have such a system, it must apply common standards, be carefully adjudicated and monitored and not allow too much discretion. In our constituencies—we all know our own best—many people may want to avail themselves of this provision. I regularly get people in my surgery who justifiably complain that they are being harassed for racial or other reasons. They may want to come off the electoral register. Some people may make a similar application for family reasons, because of past or present domestic violence. People summoned to serve in a jury trial may be vulnerable from the moment they are identified as a juror in a serious armed robbery, murder or drugs case.
Witnesses in criminal cases, or those believed to be witnesses, might want to be taken off the register. The same might apply to those who, without any real evidence, believed themselves to be the subject of revenge attacks: the families of people convicted of offences might well be thought to have it in for those who were party to the process. Those of us who live in or represent inner cities are accustomed to revenge attacks. This morning, I talked to a constituent whose husband is missing. She and the family believe that he may be dead as a result of a violent attack; no one quite knows. Such events lead to similar circumstances in a number of cases.
Judges, magistrates, policemen and doctors might want to be removed from the register. The list is very long, and I fear that, once the door was opened, it would be opened to, potentially, a great many people, and the concept of the register as the place where citizenship is recorded for the purpose of participation in the electoral process would become a very different concept.
My second point is technical. All politicians know that, especially in these days of computers and database-held electoral registers, it is not difficult to track people down. If I could not find Martin Linton of Battersea on this year's register, it would not be difficult for me to consult last year's register, or the register for the year before. The fact that Martin Linton is not on this year's register will not stop me from tracking him down if I am determined to do so. If someone leaves a message in my constituency office and I have no address for that person, we can track him down pretty quickly, and it is not difficult to do that in a wider context.
Thirdly, the test proposed by the amendment is whether an individual would be prejudiced. It suggests that a person's name should not be included on the register if
inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person".
That should be considered in the contexts of terrorism and of freedom of information. What is prejudice—substantial prejudice, or some prejudice? A range of issues are involved.

Mr. Linton: Most of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are answered by the simple fact that the electoral registration officer, rather than the individual, would make the decision. The amendment is primarily intended for, and would be of use mainly to, battered wives who moved and wanted to ensure that their husbands could not trace them. Someone who has lived in the same house for 30 years can be traced through earlier registers. I can be traced through the telephone directory. Most of the jurors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would also be easily traceable, because they would not have known in the past that a threat would be posed to them, and therefore would not have taken precautions. I am thinking of people who try to move away from danger and find that the inclusion of their names on the electoral register gives their pursuers a chance to track them down.

Mr. Hughes: I entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman says. My point is that in the case of a potentially large category, the issue is for how long a person might want to claim that his or her safety was at risk, looking both backward and ahead.
A huge number of my constituents, if asked whether they felt vulnerable and harassed, might well say that they did. I understand the hon. Gentleman's proposition: they would need to consult the electoral registration officer, who would make the decision. However, the perception of what constitutes a risk to safety in my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman might be very different from the perception in other constituencies, where there might be few applicants in comparison with the number in multiracial, multicultural communities where attitudes are much less tolerant and there has been a tradition of attacks.
10.30 pm
I come to my final point. I do not want to make a great deal of it; I want simply to state the facts. There about 20 Members, of whom I am one, who have special protection because of such threats. I hope that we will never allow anyone who wants to stand for election to avail themselves of the opportunity not to be included on the register. To be allowed not to reveal where one lives cannot be consistent with seeking office as a councillor, Greater London Authority member or Member of Parliament.
I say all that in the light of the fact that colleagues from Northern Ireland have far more experience than the rest of us of such circumstances. They have kept a public presence in the face of huge risks. Some colleagues have suffered personally from those risks. We need to be careful that, in seeking to deal with a specific and proper concern when people move to a hostel or other address,

we do not suddenly open the floodgates—with the electoral register no longer substantially comprising those who are eligible to vote, and with many people not on that register but, perhaps, without protection from discovery by those who are keen to track down where they are.

Mr. William Ross: I find myself in general agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), to some extent for the reasons that he mentioned in relation to Northern Ireland Members. I have at one time or another received all sorts of weird and wonderful information on how to protect myself and to conceal where I live. Everyone knows where I live. For heaven's sake, I could not hide it because I live in a fairly republican area. The IRA already knows where I live. One has only to ask someone in the village, town or county. The idea that we can hide ourselves away in a little corner in this country for ever and no one will find us is sheer nonsense. It just cannot be done.
I appreciate what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is trying to do and what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said about crime and its dangers, but the only way to protect citizens from such behaviour is by having an efficient police force, so that those who indulge in attacks on people for vengeance, or for whatever reason, are nearly 100 per cent. certain of getting caught and suffering severely for it. That is the way to stop the criminal elements imposing their will on people.
In Northern Ireland generally, many thousands of men and women served part-time in the security forces, and in situations incomparably more dangerous than anything on this side of the Irish sea. The idea that those people could hide either their identity or place of residence was nonsense; it was known. We cannot allow our society to get into a situation where everyone wants to hide from the violent and the criminal—that way lies nothing but domination by the violent and the criminal.
We should keep that in mind. We should be prepared to allow our names to go on to the electoral register. We should expect society to protect us from evil doers whenever we give evidence against them. There is no running away from a citizen's responsibility, and we should not do anything that would encourage people even to try that.

Mr. Fabricant: The whole Committee supports the principle of the amendment, but there is considerable doubt about its practicalities. I will come to my main criticism of the amendment shortly: the burden that it puts on electoral registration officers, who are already overburdened and under-resourced.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) gave several detailed examples. He talked about the use by battered wives of their maiden names. I do not think that that would prevent a husband from finding his wife. He said that exclusions would happen only in exceptional cases. That might mean exceptional blanks on the electoral register, but in practice someone could be found very easily. If the provision were used more generally, it would be more difficult to locate those who use it. However, I am not so sure that, in the democratic process, the provision should be used in cases that are less than exceptional.
The amendment states that
inclusion of the name of the person to be registered shall not apply where, in the opinion of the registration officer, inclusion would be prejudicial to the safety of that person.
I do not believe that a registration officer on his own would be qualified to make that type of decision.
If the Minister supports the general principle in the amendment, he must say whether he wants registration officers alone to make decisions on anonymity, based on a very tight code of conduct, or whether another agency—such as the police or local social services—should provide an input before he makes the decision.

Mr. Linton: Had the hon. Gentleman been a member of the Home Affairs Committee at the time—he has joined since—he would know that the Association of Electoral Authorities suggested that applications to electoral registration officers should come from either police officers or social workers, so that there would be input from professionals with first-hand knowledge of risk assessment. Nevertheless, the decision would still lie with the registration officer.

Mr. Fabricant: It is reassuring to know that, although I am a new member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have independently reached the same conclusion on the matter that it did. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
I do not agree with one of the arguments against the amendment made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), namely, that people who are planning to persecute or attack someone would examine previous registration documents. If that were a valid argument, we should never make such a change to the system. The point is that if there is to be change, it will have to be made at some point. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Battersea said in reply to the point, the change would at least stop someone pursuing the individual as he or she moves from place to place.
The Home Office should consider the issue seriously. Although I do not think that amendment No. 85 is practicable, I should like to know whether the Government plan to include in the Bill a provision to ensure that battered wives, witnesses and all the other people who are under threat and have been mentioned in the debate will be able to sleep safely and soundly in their beds.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: This has been a useful debate, as it has raised a very serious issue. The Home Affairs Committee took the view that there should be some form of anonymous registration—for those whom some people may describe as secret voters, as they would not be known to the political parties.
The working party on electoral procedures also examined the issue. It agreed that there was a problem, and was sympathetic to the need to resolve it. However, it felt that, even with its expertise—there was substantial expertise in the working party—it was not in a position to determine precisely how a secret voting system could be established and administered.
Therefore—although we all have much sympathy for those involved in such situations, and think that there is a problem that has to be dealt with—I think that the view of the Committee is that the subject requires more study

than we have so far been able to give it, and I cannot provide any reassurance that I shall be able to support an amendment to the Bill to address the issue in the manner that we have been discussing today.
Clause 9, however, has some relevance to the issue. If we were to include in the Bill clause 9 as drafted, it would provide some protection, as there would be two registers, one of which—a full register, including all the relevant names—would be available to the political parties, and another of which would be available only to some organisations.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I am anxious to proceed, as the Committee wishes to get on. I shall make my points and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene later, I will happily give way.
I accept that there is a genuine problem, but we now have interactive search software which makes it easier to trace people. Electoral registers can be on CD-Roms, which can be given away free with computer magazines. Therefore, searching for first names and surnames is remarkably easy. Clause 9 might provide some assistance in this area, and it remains to be seen what view the House takes. The Government have listened carefully to representations on the matter.
We need to see how we proceed with clause 9, but I accept that there is an issue here. There are some problems with the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has made for the best of reasons. First, the parties will not know who is on the electoral register if some people are, in effect, secret voters. Those people will not be able to participate fully. They will not be able to receive the election address of the various candidates because the candidates will not know where these people are. It is possible to solve that problem, but we would have to work out a procedure to do so.
What would we do about the members of the family of the secret voter? Would they remain secret and off the register, known only to the electoral registration officer? That needs to be addressed.
I associate myself with the concerns of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about battered spouses and the victims of stalkers. We can accept that, but what about police officers, prison officers, some Members of Parliament or Child Support Agency officials? We could go on and list those who, for all sorts of reasons, feel that they and their families may not wish to prejudice their safety.
The proposals would put the electoral registration officer in a difficult position in deciding who to exclude. The amendment states that it would be
in the opinion of the electoral registration officer
that registration would be prejudicial to safety. That is not a clear test and, in many ways, is very subjective. The registration officer would be very much open to legal challenge, and we would probably have to set up an appeals system to deal with the issues. It would become very difficult for the registration officer to refuse secret registration in such situations.
I find myself in substantial agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, in that we must approach this matter with a great deal more care.


There are serious issues here, but I suggest that we take the approach of the working party on electoral procedures and study this matter more before we legislate in haste and repent at leisure.

Mr. Fabricant: Have any representations been made to the Home Office either by the police, who have long-term witnesses, or by people such as Salman Rushdie, who have been in hiding for a period of longer than a year—seeking to vote but unable to do so?

Mr. O'Brien: I have had some personal representations from people who feel that they would prefer not to have their names on the register. I am not aware that letters have been received at the Home Office, although there is a real issue here which deserves further study. I cannot guarantee that that study will be completed so that we can introduce something in the Bill.

Mr. Linton: I urge my hon. Friend to make a clear distinction between clause 9 and the amendment. People who want to avoid junk mail will not be in the least bit worried by the fact that people can look at the full register at their local library—no one is going to go through the whole register by hand, without being able to copy it, simply to send someone else junk mail—but a battered wife cannot live with the knowledge that a violent or vengeful husband can track her down simply by going to the local reference library. It is an entirely different issue.
However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 19, line 20, leave out "October" and insert "September".
The import of the amendment is clear. In Northern Ireland, the date has been 15 September for as long as I can remember and probably longer; I do not know why, other than to give people more time to explore the possibilities of fraud in the Northern Ireland registers. There may be other reasons.
We have the opportunity to apply the same date throughout the United Kingdom for what will become the basic register on which the rolling procedure will operate. There are several advantages to 15 September. It would create uniformity throughout the United Kingdom and simplify the position of university students.
A member of my family is at a Scottish university, so I know that the year tends to start early there, in September, but lots of universities start somewhat later than that, and one of the bones of contention that I have found on this side of the Irish sea is that those who leave home before the October date on which they are to be registered are away from home at the qualifying date and could legitimately register either at their place of study or at home.
If we move the date to 15 September, most university students in the United Kingdom will be registered at their home address and it will be much easier to keep track of them when they change thereafter. There is a definite advantage in that.
As the schedule says that the register must be published by 1 December, the 15 September date would give registration officers an extra month and people would have more time to check whether they were on the register. Elections rarely take place in December or January. I remember two, neither of which was very successful for some folk. One of them brought me here and the other, known as the snowman's election, was rather earlier in Northern Ireland.
There are advantages in having a uniform date throughout the United Kingdom. The Bill says that revised registers can be published if many changes are made. I suspect that that will not happen and that, despite all the high hopes that some have expressed, we will wind up producing one register for an electoral area and it will remain largely unchanged throughout the year. I suspect that people will not take as much advantage or notice of the rolling registration as the Bill's progenitors hope.
The amendment represents a straightforward change that would have certain advantages for the whole country and for the way in which the register is compiled. I invite the Minister to tell us why it should not be made.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not in a position to reflect the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, but the amendment raises two issues. The first, which is on all fours with a point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, is that it would seem to be a great advantage to have a national date on which registration for voting occurs, as well as having the rolling register in the background. I have made the point before in relation to the build-up to the census that people do not feel that registering is important. A form comes through the letter box, and if one does not fill it in, one gets another letter. One does not have the sense that the form has to be completed by a certain date.
The second point is that the date cycle works on the basis that the forms are delivered in August and collected for a date in October for a register that comes into effect in February—normally for an electoral cycle in May. That means that people fill in the form in August or September and by the time the register comes into force, it is four months out of date. By the time the election arrives, it is eight months out of date. We need a cycle that minimises the time between the form being filled in, the registration becoming valid and people feeling part of the process.
The rolling register will alter the situation slightly, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we will need to encourage people annually to register. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the working group reflected on that point. Even if we do not make a decision today, we should consider the cycle carefully to maximise the chance of people getting on the electoral register.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has always made the point that we lose millions of people from the register, and everything we do must be geared to getting the maximum number of people on to the register. The Bill will try to do that, but I am not sure that the cycle of registration has yet achieved it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I recognise that under current arrangements the qualifying date for registration in Northern Ireland is just under a month earlier than that for the rest of Britain—15 September compared with 10 October. In future there will not be a single annual qualifying date as people will be able to register at any point of the year. That is the effect of the rolling registration programme, but there will still be a requirement for electoral registration officers to carry out an annual canvass.
I see the benefits of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but it would lengthen by a month the period between the date by reference to which the annual registration canvass is to be held and the date on which the register based on that canvass is published. It would also require the canvass to be held over what is for many parts of the United Kingdom—including whole towns in some areas—a major holiday period.
I understand that the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has been consulted and is happy about the proposed changes. He does not anticipate any particular difficulty about moving to an October date for his canvass. I am therefore reluctant to accept the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman explained his concern about an October date and the fact that university students will be away from home on the date in question. Under the present law, students may register in respect of their home address even if they are not physically present there on the qualifying date. They may also register in respect of their university or college address. That will not be changed by the new provisions governing registration, so young people from Northern Ireland who are studying at institutions outside the Province will continue to be able to register in respect of their home addresses—as well as, if they wish, in respect of their university or college address. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment on that basis.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the working party. I do not know whether it considered the issue, but I shall write to him on that point.

Mr. William Ross: I have listened to what I consider to be the weak case made by the Minister. He said that the date will be put back a month, but the publication date could be brought forward a month, if that is all that is worrying the Government. I still take the view that the canvass date is simply replacing the present qualifying date. In my view, there is no good reason why 15 September should not be chosen. The evenings are long at that time of year, so when the part-time workers go round collecting the household forms they do so in the light. The long winter nights that set in during October make the job more difficult and render people—especially those in rural areas—less willing to open the door to strangers.
The last major holiday in Northern Ireland is at the end of August. The household forms go out in the same month, and I assume that that is true too of Great Britain. I see no difficulty in what I propose, but there seems to be a prejudice on this side of the Irish sea against following the example of what is done in Northern Ireland. Electoral registration is, and always has been, much better there than on the mainland.
I hope that the Minister will not ignore what I have said, and that he will consider the proposal further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 20, line 43, after "publish", insert
in print and in electronic format".
This amendment is as straightforward as amendment No. 111. It proposes that the register should be made available on computer disk as well as on paper. At present, the register is available in that format, but it has to be sent away for transcription. I want people to be able to put the disk into their computers much more easily than is the case at present.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. It proposes no more than what is already common practice, and should be put on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I cannot accept the amendment, as it is simply unnecessary. Registration officers are already required to make the electoral register available in paper form and, where it is produced electronically, in an electronic format. As all electoral registration officers now produce their registers on computer, the register can be obtained, on payment of the appropriate fee, in either format. Copies can even be reserved in advance.
We will shortly discuss the possibility that the full electoral register will be available in an electronic format. Although that is a separate matter, people entitled to the full electoral register will be able to get it on paper or in the electronic format. The edited register will also be for sale in both formats.
One problem in the past has been that the format used for the register was not always compatible with all computers, with the result that it had to be transcribed to another, more suitable, format. Requiring the electoral registration officer to undertake such a transcription for all personal computers would be onerous and unnecessary. In my experience, such problems in the United Kingdom have been overcome by the major political parties.

11 pm

Mr. Barnes: The Minister's point is that the electronic format was purchased; but should not political parties, in addition to being issued with the published version, be able to have access to the disk as well without being involved in massive expenditure? I hope that that will be considered.

Mr. O'Brien: I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is a valid point in many ways, but if extra expenditure will be occasioned for the taxpayer by reason of this proposal, it must be considered with care. It is not an invalid point because, as my hon. Friend would no doubt tell me were he not in a sedentary position, this is all about paying for democracy. The issue will have to be weighed in the balance, and I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said. The electronically formatted register is already available, and although I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Ross: The point that was well made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was the


very point that I was trying to bring to the attention of the Committee. The register is on tape, and transcribing it costs quite a lot of money. I believe that since the present systems were set up, technology has moved forward so fast and so far that there are now bound to be much cheaper methods of doing this. Compact disks can carry a huge amount of information, and I do not believe that it would cost all that much for electoral officers throughout the United Kingdom to have a system in which their tapes could be transcribed on to disks and made available at a much lower cost than at present.

Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I can be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. The best approach might be to consult the electoral registration officers and see what difficulties, or otherwise, might be occasioned by the proposal. I could then write to the hon. Gentleman and, if such an approach is feasible, we may be able to do something in another place. I cannot guarantee that, or undertake to do it, but we can certainly consult with the electoral registration officers.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As we are spending some money, perhaps a bit more can be found if need be. In the light of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 21, line 39, after "above;", insert—
(ca) is notified of any decision on an appeal by virtue of section 56 below which requires any such alteration in the register as is mentioned in subsection (4) of that section;".

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 61, 64 and 65.

Mr. O'Brien: These are minor drafting amendments. They deal with the point at which alterations to the register have been the subject of an appeal. I shall not outline them to the House at this stage of the proceedings unless any hon. Member particularly requests it.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 21, line 41, at end insert—
(1A) The registration officer shall determine an application for an alteration of the register within a period of three working days from receipt of the application.".

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 45, in page 21, line 45, leave out from "him" to "and" in line 50 and insert
not later than the day following the day on which he determines or, as the case may be, becomes satisfied that the alteration should be made".
Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
No. 46, in page 22, line 22, at end insert—
except where a person can demonstrate that he was, before that day, entitled to be registered and where the registration officer makes his determination at least three working days before the election.".

Mr. Barnes: We have an increasingly mobile and rootless society, which has a tremendously adverse effect on electoral registration in the United Kingdom. The Government seek to tackle that problem, but the Bill is unduly restrictive. My amendments, and others to which I shall speak on later occasions, are intended to improve on the Government's proposals.
The problem I seek to tackle is that, while electoral registers do not come into force in Britain until 16 February each year, the person is registered at the address at which he or she was resident on 10 October in the preceding year. The Bill proposes to remove the 10 October qualifying date so that someone who moves to a new area may transfer his or her electoral registration without having to wait up to 16 months. When people move or die, their registration will be deleted from the original register.
That is fine as far as it goes, but the Bill has shortcomings in that the transferred registration will become effective only when it is published on a supplementary monthly list. Registration submitted within a fortnight before publication of those lists will be held over until the following month's publication. No monthly supplementary list will be published when an election is approaching once the last day for nominations has been reached. When those provisions are combined, in some cases, people seeking to transfer registration five and a half weeks from the close of nominations will not be able to vote in an election in the area of their new residence. We can do better than that.
A transferred registration could become operative as soon as it is accepted and logged into a computer by the electoral returning officer—as happened with the anti-social poll tax. To avoid an area's being subject to a rush of temporary registrations that would distort the result of a by-election, the register could cease to roll on the closing date for nominations, recommencing on the day after polling. However, if someone has moved to an area before the close of nominations but has not registered immediately, his or her registration could still be accepted up to, say, three days before the election.
To make my proposals fit the current Bill, amendment No. 44 proposes that registration should be determined three days after its receipt by the electoral returning officer. In amendment No. 45, I propose that registrations should be published the day after determination, and publication could be on the computer. Amendment No. 46 argues that someone who is late to register, but who qualifies to have registered, can still be put on the appropriate register three working days before an election. I am trying to make the register roll in keeping with modern needs. In later amendments, I shall try to help that process further. The current amendments are only part of my modernisation proposals.
I want to stress the seriousness of this problem. We need stronger provisions to allow the register to roll more genuinely than it would under the Bill. Radical reforms are needed. I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the seriousness of the shortfall in electoral registration. In 1993, the Office for Population, Censuses


and Surveys published a survey by Stephen Smith entitled "Electoral registration in 1991" In the summary of his main findings, Mr. Smith wrote that
the best estimate of non-registration in private households is therefore between 7.4 per cent, and 9 per cent, for England and Wales.
On the same page, Mr. Smith published a table in which the most serious aspects of non-registration of those eligible were set out. The figures were: 38.2 per cent, of those in private and rented furnished accommodation; 36.6 per cent, of new Commonwealth citizens; 27.6 per cent, of those who have moved over the past year; 24 per cent, of black people; 21.9 per cent, of those under 17—the teenagers soon to have their names on a register; 20.6 per cent, of the 21 to 24 age group; and 20.4 per cent, in inner London. Those serious distortions have considerable effects on electoral registration. The Bill does something to deal with basic problems so that people who move can transfer registration, but we must do much more. I shall introduce amendments on the role of the electoral returning officer in those matters, as part of the whole scheme of things that I am proposing. At present, I am limited to the amendments before the Committee.
My evidence to the Select Committee continued:
These calculations seem to me to be confirmed by two factors. First, the arguments about the inadequacy of the static registration system"—
I mentioned those earlier. I went on to say that the second was that
between 1983–96 the shortfall between those registered and the eligible population fell steadily in Britain from 2.2 per cent to 4.9 per cent. This seems to me to fit in with a period in which we have seen a breakdown in certain aspects of the social fabric: which will disproportionately affect groups highlighted in Stephen Smith's survey. A boost was given to non-registration by the impact of the Poll Tax from 1988 where there was an interlink between the Poll Tax and electoral registers.
Probably, about 1 million people were missing from that registration.
My evidence continued:
It seems to me that Stephen Smith's study of a registration shortfall of between 7.4 per cent and 9 per cent is entirely plausible.
As the shortfall isn't random across society, it will also distort the drawing of electoral boundaries.
If the situation is as serious as the one that I described in my evidence to the Select Committee, we need to take several measures that are stronger than those in the Bill. My amendments are intended to do that—they will set us on a path that will enable us to put the missing millions back on to electoral registers.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for tabling these amendments, because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to him. If there is anybody who can claim to be the father of rolling electoral registration, it is my hon. Friend. He kept the issue alive when it was far from fashionable, and now that it is fashionable, he deserves much credit.
At last, my hon. Friend's efforts are coming to fruition, and I hope that he regards the system of rolling electoral registration that the Bill provides as an important step forward. I use those words carefully. I would be the first to accept that this is not a perfect scheme—it is certainly not the scheme that he would like ideally—but it does

represent a significant advance on what exists at present and it will lay the foundations for a more comprehensive rolling registration scheme in years to come.
The system that the Bill provides for was devised by a sub-group of the working party on electoral procedures whose members comprised electoral administrators and representatives of political parties. That is important, because those are the two groups who have the greatest interest in making rolling electoral registration work as effectively as possible; they are in the front line when it comes to receiving complaints from irate members of the public who are unable to vote in a particular election.
In its final report, the working party endorsed the sub-group's recommendations and stated:
We recommend that the registration scheme should retain the present claims and objections procedure, but that this should be developed to include information necessary to prevent double registrations. Any claim received by the registration officer would only be entered onto the register after a period for public scrutiny and challenge, which would mean that claims received before the 15th day of one month and not requiring to be considered under objections procedure would be entered onto the register from the first day of the following month.
The scheme in the Bill sticks exactly to that timetable. Quite simply, the electoral administrators did not believe that the more ambitious timetable that my hon. Friend had in mind would be possible at present. That is why I said that we hope to create a system that will deliver a much better and more effective rolling registration system, but I cannot say that we will deliver the ideal system envisaged by my hon. Friend. We may have that ideal system in future, but unfortunately we may have to wait for a short while before it comes to fruition.
Electoral administrators have many duties and cannot always consider registration applications instantaneously. For example, hon. Members could imagine what might happen if there was a by-election in one ward of a local authority. The registration officer, who might well also be the returning officer in that by-election, would probably be far too busy in the week of the by-election to give instant consideration to registration applications from other wards. Considering and processing applications as they come in, instead of monthly, would require registration officers to issue almost daily alteration lists, which I imagine would not be popular with the political parties or anyone else.
11.15 pm
Finally, there is the important point that electoral registration officers around the country are not currently electronically linked to one another, which is an important prerequisite of a fast-moving rolling registration system. Some 30 different, not necessarily compatible, software systems are being used by electoral registration departments. That sounds trivial. In the modern world one might think that the problem is easy to overcome, but most local authority electoral registration departments use computer systems that are offshoots of the main local authority computer system, so it is a much larger problem.
I hope that I have shown my hon. Friend that the scheme that his amendments seek to introduce, although in many ways very valid and ideal, is at present too ambitious, but I hope that it is something that we can aspire to in the years to come, as our technology improves.
Let me say a few words about amendment No. 46. Although we always say that we currently have a fixed register that is compiled annually and cannot be changed during the year, that is not quite true. Currently, anyone who can show that they were qualified on the qualifying date can have their name added to the register at any time of the year. The only exception is that no additions may be made to a register to be used at an election after the closing date for nominations at that election. It has always been felt that parties and candidates—to say nothing of the returning officer—need fixed goalposts during an election campaign and need to know exactly which, and how many, electors they are dealing with. We think that the principle must be preserved. However, amendment No. 46 would breach it.
I hope that on the basis of what I have said, my hon. Friend will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Finally, I shall say a few words about the two Government amendments. Amendment No. 59 is a simple amendment—although it may not look like it—to tidy up the provisions of the Bill relating to rolling electoral registration.
Under the new system, electoral registration officers will be required to carry out an annual canvass and to publish a revised version of the electoral register on 1 December each year. They will also be required to publish monthly lists of alterations, showing the additions and deletions made in the previous month. However, the working party received very strong advice from electoral administrators that it would not be practical for them to publish monthly alteration lists in October and November, as they would be in the midst of carrying out their annual canvass. The amendment makes that clear.
Amendment No. 60 is a simple drafting amendment. It simply makes it clear that, for reasons that I have explained in connection with amendment No. 46, changes to the register arising from monthly alterations cannot take effect after the last day for nominations in an election.

Mr. Barnes: I appreciate the importance of establishing a principle through Parliament. In the Bill we are establishing the principle of the rolling register. Because we have broken the mould and established that area, some of the further measures that I am seeking will have an opportunity to come into play in future.
The amendments that I have tabled are not quite as difficult as the Minister has suggested. The Association of Electoral Administrators, which has always strongly supported the idea of rolling registers, has taken the lead on this matter, and I am sure that it would be happy to take on board some of my amendments.
However, it would be very churlish of me not to seek to withdraw the amendment after being called the father of the rolling register, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 59, in page 22, line 2, leave out from "in" to end of line 17 and insert
a case where (apart from this subsection) that subsection would require the notice to be issued—

(a) at the beginning of the month containing the date on which a revised version of the register is next due to be published in accordance with section 13(1) or (3) above, or
(b) at the beginning of either of the two months preceding that containing the date on which a revised version of the register is next due to be published in accordance with section 13(1) above,

and in such a case the alteration in question shall be made in that revised version of the register.".
No. 60, in page 22, line 19, after "effect", insert "under subsection (2) above".
No. 61, in page 22, line 25, leave out from "section" to end of line 26.
No. 62, in page 22, line 40, leave out first "any" and insert "another".
No. 63, in page 22, line 41, leave out "otherwise than" and insert ", whether or not".
No. 64, in page 24, line 13, after "appeal)", insert—
(a) after 'the registration officer shall' insert ', in accordance with section 13A above,'; and
(b)".
No. 65, in page 24, line 13, at end insert—
(4) In subsection (4A) (effect of alterations in register), for 'is made under subsection (4) above' substitute 'made in pursuance of subsection (4) above takes effect under section 13(5) or 13A(2) above.".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 26, line 20, leave out "authorising" and insert "requiring".

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in page 26, line 25, at end insert—
(4A) Provisions authorising a registration officer to inspect, for the purpose of his registration duties, records kept (in whatever form) by categories of persons or bodies, to be specified by the Secretary of State, having information about any person's actual or proposed place of residence or change of place of residence, and to make copies of information contained in such records.".

Mr. Barnes: These amendments deal with the powers and duties of electoral returning officers in seeking to encourage people to register. I believe that electoral returning officers should play a much more proactive role than the Bill provides for.
In amendment No. 55, I would require, rather than just authorise, electoral returning officers to undertake a search for various records. Such duties should clearly be placed on electoral returning officers, although I agree that they should have the facilities and the resources to be able to carry them out.
In amendment No. 27, I would extend the records for which electoral returning officers could search beyond those that are held by local and public authorities. It would allow the Secretary of State to specify categories of people who have information about a person's actual or proposed place of residence or their change of residence. Estate agents, conveyancing solicitors, the former public utilities, such as gas, water, electricity and British Telecom, all have access to details of people's


changed addresses. Consideration should be given to providing electoral returning officers with access to such information so that they can carry out their duties. Privatisation and public-private partnerships are the order of the day, so we are in danger of seeing continuously decreasing boundaries of local and public authorities. My amendment would ensure that there would be no cuts in the areas that electoral returning officers could turn to.
If my suggestions worry people because they perceive that they have big-brother implications for the work of electoral returning officers, we should be able to consider the future introduction of confidentiality clauses that would insist that such information would be collected by and would be for the use of electoral returning officers only when they decide whether to transfer, delete, alter or add registration arrangements.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the amendments because they allow me to pay tribute to one of the senior electoral officers who was on the working party on electoral procedures. Mr. David Monks, who is now the returning officer in Huntingdon, was formerly the returning officer in North Warwickshire, so he was able to declare that I was the elected Member for that constituency. I can guarantee that he is a very competent and careful electoral registration officer and that he has great experience of such matters.
The working party on electoral procedures of which David Monks was a member was very conscious of the difficulties that electoral registration officers have in compiling an accurate register. The great experience that he brought to bear enabled them to express the frustration that they feel in the knowledge that their councils often hold the requisite information, but electoral registration departments cannot get access to it. This issue becomes even more acute under a system of rolling registration when people can amend their electoral registration as soon as they move.
Accordingly the working party made the following recommendation:
We recognise that there are a range of local authority and other data sources which it would be helpful to the registration officer to be able to consult in carrying out his duties under a rolling registration scheme … we recommend that registration officers should be entitled to request and receive information from local authority and other appropriate public data sources in order to allow them properly to carry out their duty of maintaining an accurate and up to date register.
That is an important recommendation and paragraph 23 of schedule 1 is our way of giving effect to it. That paragraph will allow for regulations to be made that will authorise electoral registration officers to consult records held by the local authority and by those who provide services to the authority. That might include the housing department's records or the council tax register.
Amendment No. 55 would require registration officers to consult such records rather than simply allowing them to do so. I have to tell my hon. Friend and the Committee that I think that such a change would not be welcome to electoral registration officers. They have said that they will need no extra encouragement to use a facility that will make their jobs easier.
I do not think that we need to teach electoral registration officers to suck eggs. They have every incentive to ensure that their registers are as accurate and up to date as possible, not least because they are on the

receiving end of complaints from those who are left off the register. Experience and the sharing of good practice means that they are best equipped to know how to compile their registers and we should avoid being unduly prescriptive and making their job more difficult.
I have every confidence that once registration officers are given access to local authority records, they will develop techniques for making the most of that access, and we should leave them to get on with it rather than telling them what to do.
My hon. Friend's second amendment would go further. It would allow for regulations to be made enabling the registration officer to consult the records of any person or body who held information about a person's residence. It is hard to know who falls into that category. The obvious answer is the utility companies, and it is true that people will generally notify the electricity and gas boards and the phone company when they move. Equally importantly, they will notify the local authority council tax office to ensure that they do not end up paying council tax on two properties.
Utility companies invariably want a single name for each property to whom they can send bills. I am not sure therefore that utility companies and other organisations necessarily offer useful information above and beyond that held by council tax registers, which is already provided for in the Bill.
Other bodies that have information on people's residence are lawyers, estate agents and other private organisations such as banks. We would be getting into very dangerous privacy and data protection waters if we were to give electoral registration officers access to the records held by such bodies, as the amendment might inadvertently suggest. Indeed the working party warned:
Registration officers … should not be entitled to such access where this would otherwise result in a breach of data protection or other privacy regulations.
I have every sympathy with the motives behind the amendments, but I hope from what I have said that my hon. Friend will realise that the Bill will make a major contribution to ensuring that electoral registration officers can compile accurate registers. I hope, therefore, that he will realise that his amendments are unnecessary and withdraw them.

Mr. Barnes: I have great faith in electoral returning officers, and the best practice is excellent. However, a variety of practices are used, and clearly some registers are much more up to date than others, so best practice needs to be spread. I do not worry about placing duties upon electoral returning officers.
On amendment No. 27, I have faith that electoral returning officers will make good use of the different techniques available to them to get hold of information and to ensure that it is used only for compiling electoral registers. As I said, I should perhaps have tabled another amendment that included a provision for confidentiality that might have dealt with some of the worries expressed by the Minister. As the future will eventually bring improved electoral registration techniques, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

REGISTRATION: OVERSEAS ELECTORS

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have one question for the Minister, and I will understand if he says that he cannot give me an answer now, but I would be grateful in that case if he would write to me. Schedule 2 amends the Representation of the People Act 1985 in relation to the franchise for the European parliamentary elections. The question that is often asked, when there is an opportunity, is when the Government will bring forward the legislative changes to make sure that the people of Gibraltar can vote in the European parliamentary elections, as they are entitled to do following the European Court ruling that says that they must be able to vote.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Mike Hall.]
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Mortgages and Unfair Contract Terms

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I may not look like Barbra Streisand, but since the title of this Adjournment debate was published, I too have known what it is like to be hounded by the paparazzi. It has seemed like every mortgage lender in the country has beaten a path to my door to explain why their products are fair and reasonable, and why others—usually their competitors' products—are not. When I first approached Madam Speaker's Office and proposed a title for this debate, I suggested "Mortgage Rip-Offs". I must compliment the Speaker's assistant secretary for the courtesy and tact that he showed in persuading me that "Mortgages and Unfair Contract Terms" might be more appropriate. So what are these unfair contract terms, and why do so many people feel that they have been treated badly by their mortgage lender?
I shall first examine extended redemption penalties— or lock-ins as they are often known. Back in the days of the Conservative Government in 1994, with a stagnant housing market and the curse of negative equity, mortgage lenders tried to find a way to kick-start the housing market. They offered deals that were front-loaded to home buyers: discounted rates, fixed-rate schemes and even cash back. Clearly, the only way in which lenders could recoup the cost of such low-rate schemes was by locking borrowers into their standard variable rate for several years after the initial incentive had run out.
I am a fair-minded person, and if that were all there were to extended redemption penalties, I would say "fair enough". So what is the problem? It is this: if one signs a contract that committed one for five years to pay a supplier of orange juice, one would expect the contract to specify the cost that one could incur for the whole five years. If the price charged by the supplier could vary from year to year depending on the orange crop harvest, one would expect the fluctuating cost to be related to some index—the orange market juice index, perhaps—which would govern the shift in the cost that one would have to pay for one's juice.
One would not be happy with a contract that allowed the supplier to vary the cost of the orange juice after the first year by any amount that the supplier chose. One would certainly not be happy if the orange market index were falling yet the supplier could charge the same or even a higher cost for the juice or if one faced massive financial penalties for breaking such a contract and refusing to pay that inflated cost.
Such a contract would be one-sided; its terms would be unfair—or, in the language used outside Madam Speaker's Office, a rip-off. One would not be happy, yet that is exactly what happens when one purchases a mortgage with extended redemption penalties.
Let us imagine that someone takes out a two-year fixed rate that locks them in for three years beyond that to the lender's so-called standard variable rate. The person may not appreciate that the standard variable rate does not have to track any external index; it can entirely ignore the Bank of England base rate. Borrowers do not know—indeed, cannot know—what they are signing up to when they


agree to the contract. If subsequently they find that the contract is not acceptable, they face an often more unacceptable premium to bail out.
Two years ago, Mr. Pearson-Miles took out a two-year fixed rate mortgage with the Alliance and Leicester for £75,000. The mortgage was described as "portable". Now, he is moving to a bigger house, and needs to increase his mortgage, but the terms offered by Alliance and Leicester for the new bigger loan are not as favourable as those that it gives even to its new customers, and they are certainly not competitive.
Mr. Pearson-Miles has a choice. He can either pay the higher rate to Alliance and Leicester plc, where he is locked in for the next five years, or he can pay a £3,000 premium to take his mortgage business elsewhere. Mr. Pearson-Miles is unhappy.
Mr. Phillips was even more unhappy. In 1992, the day after the exchange rate mechanism fiasco, he took out a 10-year fixed mortgage with NatWest, at a rate of 9.95 per cent. With interest rates falling to 5.5 per cent., NatWest made a large profit out of Mr. Phillips, who had paid well over the odds for more than five years on his mortgage. Sadly, Mr. Phillips and his wife separated and the house had to be sold after seven years.
One might have expected NatWest to be sympathetic. After all, it had made a huge profit from Mr. Phillips's fixed rate. More than that, he was taking his subsequent mortgage from NatWest. Not a bit of it. NatWest insisted on levying an early redemption charge of £5,000 because Mr. Phillips had paid off his £100,000 debt before the 10 years were up.
In a case cited by the Consumers Association, NatWest asked for £41,000 in a redemption penalty to pay off a £60,000 mortgage. That is £101,000 to pay a £60,000 debt. I think that most people would say that that is a rip-off.
It is sometimes argued by mortgage lenders that lock-ins are not unfair in practice because no lender can afford to have an uncompetitive standard variable rate, so lenders cannot take advantage of borrowers who are locked in by redemption penalties by charging an excessive variable rate. Sadly, that is not true.
Ten years ago, prospective borrowers would compare the variable rates on offer, but that is no longer the position. Most lenders do not use the standard variable rate to compete for new business. They use the much more eye-catching fixed rates or capped-rate deals. Fewer and fewer borrowers every year are on the standard variable rate, without being locked in, because consumers are getting wise to the need to remortgage.
Even between the major high-street lenders there is a broad range where variable rates differ by as much as 0.6 per cent. This variation makes it impossible to tell up front which fixed rate will prove more competitive over the life of the fixed and penalty period combined. Such a lack of transparency in what is normally the largest financial contract most people enter into is a scandal.
There is another scam to which I draw the attention of the House. I call it the corporate come-on. The Halifax and Woolwich building societies are masters at it. At the end of the fixed rate period, they write to the borrower and offer him a further fixed rate deal rather than transferring to the penal standard variable rate. That seems extremely helpful to most borrowers, particularly when

they are told that they will not have to pay the redemption penalty that would have applied if they had switched to a different lender. So there is no £5,000 penalty charge, or at least not up front.
The lender kindly offers to roll that on top of the mortgage, so there is no shock to the borrower's financial system. It is a marvellous double whammy, for not only does the lender keep the business locked in for another five years but he charges the premium as if the borrower had left him and ensures that the borrower pays interest on it for the remainder of the mortgage term. As if that were not enough, the lender can offer the same come-on in two years' time when the next fixed rate expires. It appears that in the mortgage game, loyalty rarely pays.
That is what happened to Helen and Andrew Bradshaw. After two years at a fixed rate of 5 per cent., Northern Rock offered them another fixed rate deal at 8.5 per cent. That was in November 1998, when most rates were about 7 to 7.5 per cent. The Bradshaws knew that they would be better off remortgaging with another lender, but thought that they could not afford the £800 premium that they would have to pay. Remortgaging would have saved them £70 to £80 a month, but they did not have the capital to pay the £800 in one go. Of course, they could have rolled that sum up with a new mortgage and been better off. They did not realise that Northern Rock would do that anyway by imposing a redemption charge on their existing deal.
Northern Rock had also insisted that the Bradshaws take out their own Northern Rock home insurance policy. They thought that £600 was expensive for what was after all a modest home, but Northern Rock insisted. What the Bradshaws did not realise was that the following year the policy premium would increase by 20 per cent, to £720, despite their having made no claims. This bundling of other products in with the mortgage is another rip-off. It is a way of concealing the real cost of a mortgage. I am delighted that the Government have announced that they will legislate against such insurance bundling. They cannot do it soon enough.
The calculation of interest annually rather than daily or monthly is another hidden way for lenders to boost their coffers at the home owner's expense. On a mortgage of £150,000 with a rate of 7.5 per cent, over a 25-year mortgage term, the home owner will be charged an extra £3,870 if interest calculations are reviewed annually rather than monthly. The windfall to the lender is even greater if the same home owner pays off a lump sum of £10,000 at the start of the loan. If the interest is calculated on an annual rather than a daily basis, the home owner will pay an extra £48,700 over the 25-year period. Those costs may be hidden, but they are frighteningly real, and I urge the Government to take clear and effective action to stamp out such abuses.
Another similar abuse is when lenders cut savings rates two or three weeks before they cut their mortgage rates, or when the Bank of England base rate rises and they raise their mortgage rates a few weeks before they adjust their savings rates. The strange thing is that they manage never to get it the other way round, even though they claim that this is not a scam. In the last quarter of 1998, the clearing banks—Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds TSB and NatWest—are estimated to have netted a cool £40 million by operating that scam. Regulation should ensure that saving and borrowing rates are changed simultaneously.
I now come to regulation. Many lenders who have contacted me this week have urged that the Government should regulate the mortgage product more thoroughly. Others have urged the Government to regulate more thoroughly the advice given to the home buyer. It is my view that the Government must do both.
The House is aware that discussions have taken place today with Treasury Ministers about the most appropriate way to regulate the mortgage industry. I urge the Government to place the industry within the remit of the Financial Services Authority. Those of us who sat for long months on the Committee considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill are keenly aware that the rationale that lay behind the FSA was to create a single regulator to act as a one-stop shop for the public on financial services. That rationale will have failed if the largest financial contract that most people undertake in their lives remains outside the FSA's remit.
The FSA should become the regulator, and it should urgently review not just the contractual terms of mortgage products to ensure that they are fair and transparent, but the structure of selling these products. When I walk into a car showroom, I do not meet an automobile adviser: I meet a car salesman. When I walk into a department store, I do not meet a soft furnishings adviser: I meet a sales assistant. Why, then, when I walk into the Halifax, Abbey National, the Woolwich, Barclays or NatWest am I suddenly confronted not by a mortgage salesperson but by a mortgage adviser?
That person is not there as my agent, working to secure the best deal available for me. That person is not going to examine my financial position carefully before telling me that, sadly, the company has no suitable product, but, should I care to walk down the road, company Y will no doubt be able to help me. That person is there to maximise his or her company's profit. That person knows that the mortgage that may be better for me may not produce the same commission. How else can we explain the fact that one in three mortgages sold is still sold on an endowment basis?
All mortgage salespeople should be obliged to state clearly that they are not bound to act in clients' best interests, and that their obligation is to their companies— companies that may not even have the product that is most appropriate to a client's needs. They should be obliged to draw attention to the range of products that they do not stock, but that may be available elsewhere. That might introduce some fairness and transparency to the business of selling such an important and onerous contract. It might also draw customers' attention to the fact that there are genuinely independent financial advisers who can provide unbiased advice to help them through the mortgage maze.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me that regulation of both product and advice will soon be a reality under the Financial Services Authority.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has raised an issue that is vital to many people, and he has done so with great panache and clarity. He has done us all a service because,

as he said, the decision to take out a mortgage is one of the biggest decisions that an individual consumer makes. It is also a very personal decision: the object is usually to buy one's home or to make improvements to it.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, people taking out mortgages can be in a very vulnerable position. They are often under both time pressures and economic pressures in their keenness to acquire a new home, and they may make hurried decisions without studying all the small print. I do not think that I have ever studied the small print of any loan that I have taken out; it is often difficult to do so in the prevailing circumstances.
The Government are very concerned about the problems that some consumers have encountered with their mortgages—my hon. Friend listed some of them. As he said, my colleagues in the Treasury are considering whether mortgage advice should be regulated by the Financial Services Authority, and I understand that they will announce the results of their deliberations shortly.
My Department has responsibility for consumer protection issues, so we are also taking action on this important matter. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met the Council of Mortgage Lenders, major lenders, regulators and consumer groups to discuss mortgage problems. He asked the industry to consider what it could do to address the problems; he also said that he was prepared to use his legislative powers if necessary.
One of the major issues mentioned by my hon. Friend is unfair contract terms, and the question of what is unfair. All businesses—and mortgage lenders are no exception— should deal fairly and equitably with consumers. They should use contracts written in plain language that the average consumer can readily understand. Contracts should also clearly set out all the terms that apply, so that the consumer is not faced with a nasty surprise if, for example, he wants or needs to redeem a mortgage early. The examples that my hon. Friend gave were vivid and very common. The use of legalistic jargon and incomprehensible terms can deprive consumers of their legitimate rights, or, worse, make many consumers feel, mistakenly, that they have no rights at all.
The Office of Fair Trading has recently taken action under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 against redemption charges. Such charges are justifiable for some types of mortgage, but the Government have been disturbed to learn of the level of the penalties that some people have been quoted—my hon. Friend mentioned some—to redeem their mortgages. I am also concerned about the complex formulae that some lenders have used to calculate the redemption charge. It is unreasonable to expect ordinary consumers to be able to understand how the formulae will operate if they want to redeem their mortgages, especially as few house buyers will be thinking about the consequences of early redemption when they take out their mortgages.
One of the more extreme examples of such formulae prompted the OFT to contact the lender, using its powers under the regulations. Following the OFT's intervention, the lender concerned—it was NatWest, which received quite a bit of publicity—agreed to cap its redemption charges for fixed-rate mortgages at no more than 5 per cent, of the sum redeemed where the original loan was for five years or less. For loans of five years or more, the cap is 7 per cent. However, those charges are significantly


smaller than what would have been charged using the original redemption formula. I am pleased that the OFT action has resulted in a fairer deal. Where the lender intends to impose a redemption charge, it is crucial that consumers are told about that up front and transparently. I am glad that my hon. Friend emphasised the importance of that initial transparency. In the current market, where many mortgages are redeemed early, consumers need that information to be sure that a mortgage will provide a good deal, both when it is taken out and in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised redemption penalties at the mortgage summit that he organised. Lenders have agreed either to quote cash figures for redemption charges in the initial mortgage information or, where that is not possible, to impose a cash cap. That undertaking will ensure that consumers should have a clearer idea of the consequences of early redemption before they choose a mortgage and can take that factor into account when they decide which mortgage is best for them.
My hon. Friend dealt briefly with another important issue: the annual percentage rate and the way in which it is advertised. It is one of the main hooks that cause people either to take mortgages or loans, or to reject them. I am sure that he will recall that, last November, the Government laid regulations that will make it easier for consumers to compare mortgage deals. From April, all lenders will have to use a standard method for calculating APR. They will no longer be able to advertise a mortgage with a low introductory rate—that is the hook—on the misleading basis that that low rate will last throughout the entire period of the loan.
The new regulations will require lenders to take into account the fact that, once the low rate period has ended, the interest rate will change to the lender's standard variable rate. Consumers will be able to feel confident that the advertised APR gives a better reflection of the true cost of the loan throughout the lifetime of that loan. That is an important advance.
My hon. Friend also dealt with the matter of annual versus monthly interest, which is a very important consideration. Many lenders are still using annual interest systems to credit mortgage repayments—so that the outstanding balance on a mortgage is adjusted only once a year, regardless of when repayments are made or their amount. Compared with an equivalent mortgage that charges interest on a daily or monthly basis, a consumer who is charged on an annual interest basis may expect to pay substantial additional interest during the life of the loan. It was another subject that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised at the mortgage summit.
Our new APR regulations take account of whatever system the lender uses, so that consumers are able to see which deal is cheapest overall. However, many new entrants to the mortgage market make a virtue of the fact that they do not use annual interest rates. We should like established lenders to move away from that practice, both for new and existing customers. Some of the biggest lenders have already said that, this year, they will be updating their systems. However, even when there will be

some delay before they are able to change their systems, we believe that lenders should be looking to give full and immediate value for overpayments as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the tying-in of insurance, which is a worrying trend. Some consumers who want to get the best mortgage deal from a particular lender have to buy tied home or other insurance—a practice that I have encountered in dealing with another aspect of my portfolio, the travel industry. Many people who want to obtain good package travel or holiday deal are expected to buy insurance that is often delivered at sky-high prices.
In the mortgage market, the price of compulsory insurance does not have to be competitive because the borrower cannot shop around for the best deal. Currently, it seems that relatively few lenders require the purchase of tied insurance, but we are concerned that the practice could become more widespread. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced that legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity to make it illegal to force consumers to take out certain insurance policies linked to a mortgage. We intend to publish a consultation paper on the matter in the spring, and legislation will follow.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that there have been regulations protecting consumers against unfair terms since 1994. However, in October 1999 the Government changed the law to enable more organisations to take action against businesses that use unfair terms in their standard contracts with consumers. I was very keen on that initiative.
Since the beginning of October, the Consumers Association—which is one of the named organisations— the statutory industry regulators and local authority trading standards officers—who are the stalwarts of consumer protection—have had the power to apply for court injunctions to prevent the continued use of unfair contract terms. It is a very important initiative, and the Consumers Association has not only signed up to it, but is very keen to be seen as the sponsoring agency in relation to the mortgage sector.
I expect formal court action to be very rare. The vast majority of complaints that the OFT has investigated since the regulations came into force have resulted in a negotiated change to the unfair term. I fully expect—and would encourage—the process of resolution to be by informal means, rather than by court action. As my hon. Friend said, much will depend on the action of the FSA.
The mortgage summit held at the DTI has demonstrated a willingness by the Government, lenders and consumer groups to address those major mortgage problems. Ministers and officials will be holding further meetings in the near future to ensure that they are overcome. I wholeheartedly support the work currently being done to remove unfair terms from mortgage contracts.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue—on which, although we are making progress, much is left to be done. There are very good lenders out there, offering very good products and very good services, and those best examples must be replicated everywhere possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve midnight.